it would take tens of thousands of years at current technological levels to simply reach another other world beyond our solar system
False. At current (or even decades-old) technological levels, it would take a couple years, a few decades at most. At current political levels, yes, it would take forever.
Legitimate question here: does that include military spending that's not generally considered to be part of the military budget, for example the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were funded separately?
I'm talking about "eye-for-an-eye" is about as Christian of a concept as is divine creation [Genesis], trekking through a desert [Exodus], or conducting a census [Numbers]. These are all things that can be found in the Old Testament, but they're in no way distinctly Christian (nor Jewish), and they all predate the inception of the Abraham faiths.
Yes, the Old Testament said "eye for eye". So did the Torah (which is what you're really talking about when you speak of the first five books of the Old Testament). So have countless research papers that focus on the Code of Hammurabi. So have many posts on slashdot, regarding this story. Why is the Christian Bible any more relevant here than any other set of writing about the concept of justice in the form of proportional retribution? Why did you write "Even the Old Testament said" and not "Even Hammurabi said" or "Even the Torah said" or "Even Dr. Charles F. Horne said"?
As an atheist, you should be ashamed to be so thoroughly indoctrinated with Christian belief. Christianity has a long tradition of co-opting pre-existing beliefs, practices, and philosophies, and claiming them as Christian. Your original post only furthers this tradition. What we're arguing about amounts to whether the definite article "the" is Christian, since the pages of the Christian Bible are littered with it. When discussing the definite article, it's odd to bring up the Christian Bible, since although it makes heavy use of the definite article, it is neither the originator of the concept nor a particularly interesting instance of its usage. Ditto "eye for eye".
My point is furthered by the fact that the comments under this story mention "eye for eye" several times, but always in the context of Christianity. One of the threads even devolves into a discussion about a parable written of by John (which is perhaps more relevant or interesting than mentions of the Old Testament). Not a single mention of Hammurabi, the originator of the concept. You don't think Christianity has "claimed" this concept yet? You say you're an atheist, but here you're playing on the Christian team.
Leviticus dates back to no earlier than 1619 BCE, which is at least a century after the Code of Hammurabi was written. Nice attempt at Christian revisionism though.
These factors are for all intents and purposes are absent from the street.
Irregardless, I'm not trying to beg the question here, but don't you mean all intensive purposes? Sorry for the random reply, but your post literally made me loose my marbles.
In any conditions really. But once the wheels lock up, you have no steering control that you might need in a lot of situations. It is a trade off.
Can't you just let off the brakes to unlock the wheels, and regain full steering control once your wheel speed matches your road speed? God forbid we allow drivers any control over their vehicles...
So you're lamenting the fact that expectation or accepted belief are startlingly in line with the reality that boys outperform girls in math? And that the summary is accurate in its claim that boys are generally better at math than girls?
Or are you saying that it's wrong that public perception of math skills by gender is confirmed by this data?
I understand the desire to demonstrate gender equality. It serves to discourage gender discrimination, and that's good. But when a study confirms a claim, even if the claim is one of gender inequality, it's a disservice to everyone (women included) if we just ignore the facts and stay the course with some feel-good "everyone is identical" mentality.
The fact is that boys perform better than girls in mathematics in a whopping 37 out of 65 countries, and girls perform better than boys in only 5 out of 65. No amount of doublespeak will change that fact.
At this point, it would make sense to take a look at why this is true. Perhaps institutional discrimination denies girls opportunities for satisfactory education in mathematics. But no, you'd have us sit here and think that everything is fine. No, the result of this study (and many like it) is clearly being misrepresented. The data must be falsified. Girls are surely performing on par with boys when it comes to math, pay no heed to these test results. Let's just stick our collective head in the sand, ignore this clearly biased data set, and continue on with business as usual.
Feel free to claim that Hitler only killed two thirds of European Jews, since he was expected to kill them all. Oh, hello, Godwin.
I used to drive a 1990 Honda CRX that weighed under 2000 lbs.
I also used to drive a 2000 Audi TT that weighed over 3300 lbs.
The CRX could fit more cargo, and/or more passengers comfortably (even as a 2+2) than the TT.
The TT was 159.1" long and 69.4" wide, or about 11040 square inches of shadow. The CRX was 148" long and 65.9" wide, or about 9750 square inches of shadow.
The TT was about 13% larger (viewed from above) but weighed 65% more.
I'm sure the soundproofing was better on the TT, but really, all I can say is: Airbags. Airbags, airbags, airbags. I don't even think my CRX had any, but the TT had close to a dozen. I'm glad I was being slowed down by the extra weight, burning extra fuel, just so I could be killed if I ever got in a serious collision (I don't wear a seatbelt, and airbags are really fucking deadly if you're not wearing a seatbelt).
I agree, I think the part of the PISA 2012 Overview that you quoted was terribly written. Boys outperform girls in "only" 37 out of 65 countries (57%), whereas girls outperform boys in 5 out of 65 (8%). It's clear that they put the "only" with the wrong statistic, unless the authors somehow believe that 8% > 57%.
We have similar living rooms setups, it seems. My 60" 1080p TV is about 8 feet from my couch as well.
However, I would love to have a higher resolution display. See, occasionally I slide a stool up directly in front of the TV, Alt-Tab out of VLC player, and proceed to use other, non-video applications. Try opening Eclipse from your couch and tell me again about how you don't want to move closer to the TV.
Believe it or not, LCD panels can display things beyond just video.
You can get yourself a decent prosumer dSLR setup for $1k.
Many mid-to-high-range point-and-shoot cameras have really awesome optics nowadays. My girlfriend's Olympus P&S rivals my Canon EOS Rebel T2i (550D), and I have some decent lenses. That being said, her camera can't run Magic Lantern:)
It really doesn't cost that much to get 8 great megapixels nowadays.
I didn't know burger flipping was considered part of the tech fields.
Additionally, I'm familiar with the notion of "discouraged workers" and the fact that they're not counted among the unemployed. Are you suggesting that while unemployment among tech workers hovers around 4%, there is actually a large population of "discouraged workers" in tech that have been unemployed for years and are consequently not counted among the unemployed? Another way of phrasing that claim would be "tech workers have a disproportionate ratio of discouraged to unemployed workers when compared against other sectors", and I'm wondering if you can suggest an explanation for that claim.
I've been looking for a job for over two years now. I can't believe the US job market is as tough as it has turned out to be.
I thought unemployment in tech fields was actually below 4% for a good long while now, which is effectively "no unemployment". If you can't find a job, don't blame the market. You should have headhunters fighting over you.
I'm pretty new to amateur digital photography. I use Adobe Lightroom to handle my RAW processing, mainly because I um, "had a copy laying around", and didn't know how else to deal with RAW images. I don't really know what I'm doing, beyond staring at the histogram plots and playing with various sliders to reduce overexposed/underexposed areas. What is this ACR that you speak of, and should I look into it?
Does Photoshop not run under wine? Or does gimp not meet your needs? Or are your Photoshop needs so onerous that running Photoshop in a Windows VM couldn't solve them?
Yes, I did see you mention that the apps you use run under Windows. But I also saw you mention "I need OS X", and the only explanation you seemed to offer was "Photoshop". Perhaps I missed the other justification(s) you have for "needing" OS X?
Slashdot Mirror
it would take tens of thousands of years at current technological levels to simply reach another other world beyond our solar system
False. At current (or even decades-old) technological levels, it would take a couple years, a few decades at most. At current political levels, yes, it would take forever.
Legitimate question here: does that include military spending that's not generally considered to be part of the military budget, for example the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were funded separately?
I'm talking about "eye-for-an-eye" is about as Christian of a concept as is divine creation [Genesis], trekking through a desert [Exodus], or conducting a census [Numbers]. These are all things that can be found in the Old Testament, but they're in no way distinctly Christian (nor Jewish), and they all predate the inception of the Abraham faiths.
Yes, the Old Testament said "eye for eye". So did the Torah (which is what you're really talking about when you speak of the first five books of the Old Testament). So have countless research papers that focus on the Code of Hammurabi. So have many posts on slashdot, regarding this story. Why is the Christian Bible any more relevant here than any other set of writing about the concept of justice in the form of proportional retribution? Why did you write "Even the Old Testament said" and not "Even Hammurabi said" or "Even the Torah said" or "Even Dr. Charles F. Horne said"?
As an atheist, you should be ashamed to be so thoroughly indoctrinated with Christian belief. Christianity has a long tradition of co-opting pre-existing beliefs, practices, and philosophies, and claiming them as Christian. Your original post only furthers this tradition. What we're arguing about amounts to whether the definite article "the" is Christian, since the pages of the Christian Bible are littered with it. When discussing the definite article, it's odd to bring up the Christian Bible, since although it makes heavy use of the definite article, it is neither the originator of the concept nor a particularly interesting instance of its usage. Ditto "eye for eye".
My point is furthered by the fact that the comments under this story mention "eye for eye" several times, but always in the context of Christianity. One of the threads even devolves into a discussion about a parable written of by John (which is perhaps more relevant or interesting than mentions of the Old Testament). Not a single mention of Hammurabi, the originator of the concept. You don't think Christianity has "claimed" this concept yet? You say you're an atheist, but here you're playing on the Christian team.
Leviticus dates back to no earlier than 1619 BCE, which is at least a century after the Code of Hammurabi was written. Nice attempt at Christian revisionism though.
Hammurabi was pretty awesome, but yea, he wasn't Jesus. He also predated Jesus by nearly two millennia.
As far as I know, the Code of Hammurabi is not one of the books found in the Old Testament.
Christians (you didn't call it the Torah, not that that would be any better) once again demonstrating their desire to co-opt everything and anything.
These factors are for all intents and purposes are absent from the street.
Irregardless, I'm not trying to beg the question here, but don't you mean all intensive purposes? Sorry for the random reply, but your post literally made me loose my marbles.
In any conditions really. But once the wheels lock up, you have no steering control that you might need in a lot of situations. It is a trade off.
Can't you just let off the brakes to unlock the wheels, and regain full steering control once your wheel speed matches your road speed? God forbid we allow drivers any control over their vehicles...
So you're lamenting the fact that expectation or accepted belief are startlingly in line with the reality that boys outperform girls in math? And that the summary is accurate in its claim that boys are generally better at math than girls?
Or are you saying that it's wrong that public perception of math skills by gender is confirmed by this data?
I understand the desire to demonstrate gender equality. It serves to discourage gender discrimination, and that's good. But when a study confirms a claim, even if the claim is one of gender inequality, it's a disservice to everyone (women included) if we just ignore the facts and stay the course with some feel-good "everyone is identical" mentality.
The fact is that boys perform better than girls in mathematics in a whopping 37 out of 65 countries, and girls perform better than boys in only 5 out of 65. No amount of doublespeak will change that fact.
At this point, it would make sense to take a look at why this is true. Perhaps institutional discrimination denies girls opportunities for satisfactory education in mathematics. But no, you'd have us sit here and think that everything is fine. No, the result of this study (and many like it) is clearly being misrepresented. The data must be falsified. Girls are surely performing on par with boys when it comes to math, pay no heed to these test results. Let's just stick our collective head in the sand, ignore this clearly biased data set, and continue on with business as usual.
Feel free to claim that Hitler only killed two thirds of European Jews, since he was expected to kill them all. Oh, hello, Godwin.
I used to drive a 1990 Honda CRX that weighed under 2000 lbs.
I also used to drive a 2000 Audi TT that weighed over 3300 lbs.
The CRX could fit more cargo, and/or more passengers comfortably (even as a 2+2) than the TT.
The TT was 159.1" long and 69.4" wide, or about 11040 square inches of shadow. The CRX was 148" long and 65.9" wide, or about 9750 square inches of shadow.
The TT was about 13% larger (viewed from above) but weighed 65% more.
I'm sure the soundproofing was better on the TT, but really, all I can say is: Airbags. Airbags, airbags, airbags. I don't even think my CRX had any, but the TT had close to a dozen. I'm glad I was being slowed down by the extra weight, burning extra fuel, just so I could be killed if I ever got in a serious collision (I don't wear a seatbelt, and airbags are really fucking deadly if you're not wearing a seatbelt).
So, there's that.
I agree, I think the part of the PISA 2012 Overview that you quoted was terribly written. Boys outperform girls in "only" 37 out of 65 countries (57%), whereas girls outperform boys in 5 out of 65 (8%). It's clear that they put the "only" with the wrong statistic, unless the authors somehow believe that 8% > 57%.
BILLY MAIZE HERE!
We have similar living rooms setups, it seems. My 60" 1080p TV is about 8 feet from my couch as well.
However, I would love to have a higher resolution display. See, occasionally I slide a stool up directly in front of the TV, Alt-Tab out of VLC player, and proceed to use other, non-video applications. Try opening Eclipse from your couch and tell me again about how you don't want to move closer to the TV.
Believe it or not, LCD panels can display things beyond just video.
You can get yourself a decent prosumer dSLR setup for $1k.
:)
Many mid-to-high-range point-and-shoot cameras have really awesome optics nowadays. My girlfriend's Olympus P&S rivals my Canon EOS Rebel T2i (550D), and I have some decent lenses. That being said, her camera can't run Magic Lantern
It really doesn't cost that much to get 8 great megapixels nowadays.
I didn't know burger flipping was considered part of the tech fields.
Additionally, I'm familiar with the notion of "discouraged workers" and the fact that they're not counted among the unemployed. Are you suggesting that while unemployment among tech workers hovers around 4%, there is actually a large population of "discouraged workers" in tech that have been unemployed for years and are consequently not counted among the unemployed? Another way of phrasing that claim would be "tech workers have a disproportionate ratio of discouraged to unemployed workers when compared against other sectors", and I'm wondering if you can suggest an explanation for that claim.
The headlines are much better here, though.
Meanwhile, over at el Reg:
NY police boffins THRILLED to get tall SUVs to COMBAT texting while DRIVING
I've been looking for a job for over two years now. I can't believe the US job market is as tough as it has turned out to be.
I thought unemployment in tech fields was actually below 4% for a good long while now, which is effectively "no unemployment". If you can't find a job, don't blame the market. You should have headhunters fighting over you.
I simultaneously love and hate your sig.
Thanks.
Thanks for the tip, I'll have to give that a shot. Lightroom has seemed like extreme overkill for what I need, with all the cataloging features, etc.
And the holy war comment was more geared towards myself. I can't help but trash talk Apple and their products for no reason in particular.
You, sir, are a veritable font of knowledge!
So... OS holy war aside...
I'm pretty new to amateur digital photography. I use Adobe Lightroom to handle my RAW processing, mainly because I um, "had a copy laying around", and didn't know how else to deal with RAW images. I don't really know what I'm doing, beyond staring at the histogram plots and playing with various sliders to reduce overexposed/underexposed areas. What is this ACR that you speak of, and should I look into it?
Folks don't seem to mind killing them while they are in the womb, so why wouldn't it be valid to do the same for someone who is actually suffering?
If you can figure out how to cram an old dude into a human uterus...
Fuck that. Level-headed practicality is killing this country. We're being assraped for our freedom and can only turn the other cheek in response.
Fuck the polite discourse. At some point, words must give way to pitchforks.
Does Photoshop not run under wine? Or does gimp not meet your needs? Or are your Photoshop needs so onerous that running Photoshop in a Windows VM couldn't solve them?
Yes, I did see you mention that the apps you use run under Windows. But I also saw you mention "I need OS X", and the only explanation you seemed to offer was "Photoshop". Perhaps I missed the other justification(s) you have for "needing" OS X?
I often leave Photoshop open for days (or weeks!) while working on stuff, while I do other things.
I hear Adobe is working on porting Photoshop to Microsoft Windows. If you can just wait til they're done, you'll finally be able to ditch OS X.