No. Not true. If by "free speech" you mean the First Amendment It's about the national government and, if some people are right about Fourteenth Amendment, other governments in the United States.
If you meant something other than the First Amendment, what did you mean?
Nothing at the links about their cancer incidence.
As I understand it, longer telomeres increase the risk of cancer, because cancer cells divide so much. Each division shortens the telomeres, and eventually the cancer cells run out of telomere, and quit dividing.
If this is true, those Amish can be expected to have more cancer than those in that Amish community with the common form of the SERPINE1 gene -- unless they've got some way to beat it that doesn't involve using up telomere.
This is exactly why people think libertarians are assholes.
Nope. There are other reasons.
Libertarians tend to be introverts, and not very good at communicating complex ideas to other people.
Some libertarian ideas are counter-intuitive, especially economics ideas. When it comes to economics, people tend to trust intuition. While intuition works pretty well for small groups, it fails horribly for larger ones. A reasonable approach for a band of hunter-gatherers divvying-up the day's kill does not scale to a market economy of millions or billions of people.
The same applies to various non-economic positions, to varying degrees.
Libertarians, who tend to be introverts, are often not especially skilled at countering the hostile statements of others. Those others are usually uninformed or misinformed about what libertarians actually believe. Or they know the "what" but don't understand the "why", and who then invent their own "why" -- which they then attack.
And of course, some libertarians are assholes.
Which, of course, doesn't mean they are wrong.
And I'm having trouble recalling any libertarian who was unwilling to support their assertions with facts and reasoning. I may not agree with their position, but I know what it is, and why the hold it.
But I encounter people all the time who are hostile to libertarianism, but who cannot articulate the reasons for their opposition clearly and support them well. Frequently they display classic signs of cognitive dissonance when asked a simple question, even a yes-no one: personal insults, intense anger, subject changes, etc. And they somehow, even after posting a dozen or more messages, cannot get around to answering the goddam question.
But clearly they care about people. Specifically, the people they disagree with. They sure as hell care about me: my educational background and age and circumcision status and all kinds of things, the better to insult me with.
They might have a specific person they want to hire, but rules or laws or company policies require they advertise it before hiring anyone.
Then when no one has X, Y, and Z skills, and A, B, and C education, and L, M, and N years of experience, they can hire the one they want. Someone who has that very particular set of skills and education and experience, by the most amazing of coincidences.
Or they have two or more equally-qualified candidates, but one already has domain experience because they've been working in that very building for 3 years, and that one gets it.
Not necessarily anything underhanded going on. That might be the smart hiring decision and, absent the advertise-outside requirement, one they would have made without the pretense of considering others.
I'm not that skilled at mind-reading, so I didn't know their feeeelings were what drove the decision. But I'm such a skeptic, I'm going to assume there can be multiple reasons for the various situations, and sometimes, more than one reason may be involved.
One big one: Signaling. That's what some economists say.
The degree indicates a willingness to apply to attend college, the ability to meet the institution's acceptance standards, and the determination to do all the things needed to graduate -- including (in many cases) actually learning relevant information and skills.
The prospective employee does the work and bears the expense, before even applying, and the employer gets the benefit.
Now, the employer could put the prospective employee through a battery of tests, to see if they have the necessary knowledge and skills. But that delay and expense is only necessary for ones that haven't attended such a college. When there are plenty of applicants at the salary (or wage rate) the employer is willing to pay, why not use the college degree to filter the number of applicants down to a reasonable size?
These prizes in the "loot boxes" are virtual things, right? Like virtual money usable in-game, and magical weapons, and other virtual things that can be sold for virtual money?
I wonder if Belgium and other governments that might take this interpretation of loot boxes, and what's inside them, consider Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to be money?
Apparently, it's better to chase homeless people out of your city than to allow them to live indoors in structures that you wouldn't want to live in. (Some people express their compassion and pity in odd ways. Ways that look a lot like disgust and hatred to some bystanders.)
If permitted to exist, new makers of down-market mobile homes could produce low-cost housing for low-income people, filling the niche ignored by a certain billionaire. Is this not happening?
When something sounds like a good idea, and it has the support of big business, it's probably a good idea to be skeptical.
Oh, my. The recursion may get a bit deep today. Wear boots.
Or instead of relying on the usual heuristics, one might examine the best arguments you can find on each position, and if those arguments seem thin or seem to miss some key issues, perhaps even do some original thinking of your own.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when the "net neutrality" rule wasn't in effect. So far, nobody has come up with any actual problems from that era that "net neutrality" fixed.
Ending "net neutrality" will not be the end of anything good. Dogs and cats will not be living together. There will be no mass hysteria. "Those people" will not suddenly start to want to marry your sister. Witches won't put a curse on you. And so on.
Not just doctors and the AMA. All kinds of work requires licenses. Even tour guides and interior decorators, in some places.
The "protect the consumer" argument is most obviously bullshit in those cases. Will a customer end up dead or crippled if someone tells tourists nonsense about the maple trees in front of the old courthouse, or abuses the Sherwin-Williams color palette?
The Institute for Justice challenges these sorts of things, a lot. https://ij.org/
Not just now, of course. The Grant administration was notoriously corrupt, as was Tammany Hall. Teapot Dome. Transcontinental railroad. If someone isn't a millionaire when they enter the Congress, they sure are when they leave.
The more things government controls, the greater the opportunities for corruption.
Guess who likes so-called "Net Neutrality"? It's not just do-gooders.
Another instance of "the Baptist and the bootlegger".. Do-gooders and do-badders can end up as allies, unbeknownst to the do-gooders. Far too often, the bad guys have a better understanding of the issues involved and the actual consequences. And after the dust settles and the bad consequences arise, the do-gooders want more legislation. And the do-badders quietly help the new legislation along. https://duckduckgocom/?q=bapti...
Because I didn't RTFA, I don't know if the article and/or headline and/or summary is sloppy in its math or unaware of the difference between a transaction and a block. Or in its estimate of how much electricity a typical (presumably American) house uses in a week. So it would be inappropriate for me to quip: Unless you're Al Gore, in which case it only takes about two days.
Instead, I'll just note that if Bram Cohen's "proofs of space and time" variant works out -- https://chia.network/ -- the cost of at least one cryptocurrency should not have that problem.
And if my understanding is correct, it will cost less and less to produce over time, as the price of storage declines. (Presumably this will be a feature, rather than a bug.)
Slashdot Mirror
No. Not true. If by "free speech" you mean the First Amendment It's about the national government and, if some people are right about Fourteenth Amendment, other governments in the United States.
If you meant something other than the First Amendment, what did you mean?
{organization} {jobtitle} {firstandllastname} Criticizes {pluraloforganizationtype} That Oppose His Efforts To {takeacontroversialnaction}
Golly. What a surprise.
I wonder if a person in that position might praise those who support their efforts?
Or anything said by people that liberals disagree with, which automatically makes them "conservatives".
This, no matter how much they differ from other people who are called "conservatives". By people who are not conservatives.
Nothing at the links about their cancer incidence.
As I understand it, longer telomeres increase the risk of cancer, because cancer cells divide so much. Each division shortens the telomeres, and eventually the cancer cells run out of telomere, and quit dividing.
If this is true, those Amish can be expected to have more cancer than those in that Amish community with the common form of the SERPINE1 gene -- unless they've got some way to beat it that doesn't involve using up telomere.
To find out what if anything the article has to say about cancer, I guess I'll just have to RTFA.
Because nobody's going to read it for me.
This is exactly why people think libertarians are assholes.
Nope. There are other reasons.
Libertarians tend to be introverts, and not very good at communicating complex ideas to other people.
Some libertarian ideas are counter-intuitive, especially economics ideas. When it comes to economics, people tend to trust intuition. While intuition works pretty well for small groups, it fails horribly for larger ones. A reasonable approach for a band of hunter-gatherers divvying-up the day's kill does not scale to a market economy of millions or billions of people.
The same applies to various non-economic positions, to varying degrees.
Libertarians, who tend to be introverts, are often not especially skilled at countering the hostile statements of others. Those others are usually uninformed or misinformed about what libertarians actually believe. Or they know the "what" but don't understand the "why", and who then invent their own "why" -- which they then attack.
And of course, some libertarians are assholes.
Which, of course, doesn't mean they are wrong.
And I'm having trouble recalling any libertarian who was unwilling to support their assertions with facts and reasoning. I may not agree with their position, but I know what it is, and why the hold it.
But I encounter people all the time who are hostile to libertarianism, but who cannot articulate the reasons for their opposition clearly and support them well. Frequently they display classic signs of cognitive dissonance when asked a simple question, even a yes-no one: personal insults, intense anger, subject changes, etc. And they somehow, even after posting a dozen or more messages, cannot get around to answering the goddam question.
But clearly they care about people. Specifically, the people they disagree with. They sure as hell care about me: my educational background and age and circumcision status and all kinds of things, the better to insult me with.
Maybe "care about" is not the right phrase. ;-)
Like the lysine contingency in "Jurassic Park"? We know how badly that worked out.
Golly!
From "propaganda"? WTF does that mean, in this context?
Foreign propaganda rather than domestic propaganda, I would assume. Maybe I'll RTFA to confirm/correct that.
Not necessarily green card-related.
They might have a specific person they want to hire, but rules or laws or company policies require they advertise it before hiring anyone.
Then when no one has X, Y, and Z skills, and A, B, and C education, and L, M, and N years of experience, they can hire the one they want. Someone who has that very particular set of skills and education and experience, by the most amazing of coincidences.
Or they have two or more equally-qualified candidates, but one already has domain experience because they've been working in that very building for 3 years, and that one gets it.
Not necessarily anything underhanded going on. That might be the smart hiring decision and, absent the advertise-outside requirement, one they would have made without the pretense of considering others.
No Darwin award for you!
This time.
I'm not that skilled at mind-reading, so I didn't know their feeeelings were what drove the decision. But I'm such a skeptic, I'm going to assume there can be multiple reasons for the various situations, and sometimes, more than one reason may be involved.
One big one: Signaling. That's what some economists say.
The degree indicates a willingness to apply to attend college, the ability to meet the institution's acceptance standards, and the determination to do all the things needed to graduate -- including (in many cases) actually learning relevant information and skills.
The prospective employee does the work and bears the expense, before even applying, and the employer gets the benefit.
Now, the employer could put the prospective employee through a battery of tests, to see if they have the necessary knowledge and skills. But that delay and expense is only necessary for ones that haven't attended such a college. When there are plenty of applicants at the salary (or wage rate) the employer is willing to pay, why not use the college degree to filter the number of applicants down to a reasonable size?
Governments are funny sometimes.
These prizes in the "loot boxes" are virtual things, right? Like virtual money usable in-game, and magical weapons, and other virtual things that can be sold for virtual money?
I wonder if Belgium and other governments that might take this interpretation of loot boxes, and what's inside them, consider Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to be money?
If not, it seems rather inconsistent.
Sounds like there's a market for no-frills prefab homes. You know, like decades ago, when the mobile home started.
I wonder if they're illegal?
Tiny homes have sure been facing some challenges. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tiny...
Apparently, it's better to chase homeless people out of your city than to allow them to live indoors in structures that you wouldn't want to live in. (Some people express their compassion and pity in odd ways. Ways that look a lot like disgust and hatred to some bystanders.)
If permitted to exist, new makers of down-market mobile homes could produce low-cost housing for low-income people, filling the niche ignored by a certain billionaire. Is this not happening?
When something sounds like a good idea, and it has the support of big business, it's probably a good idea to be skeptical.
Oh, my. The recursion may get a bit deep today. Wear boots.
Or instead of relying on the usual heuristics, one might examine the best arguments you can find on each position, and if those arguments seem thin or seem to miss some key issues, perhaps even do some original thinking of your own.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when the "net neutrality" rule wasn't in effect. So far, nobody has come up with any actual problems from that era that "net neutrality" fixed.
Some perhaps helpful links. https://plus.google.com/111504... which links to http://thegarrisoncenter.org/a... , and also http://knappster.blogspot.com/...
Ending "net neutrality" will not be the end of anything good. Dogs and cats will not be living together. There will be no mass hysteria. "Those people" will not suddenly start to want to marry your sister. Witches won't put a curse on you. And so on.
That it's the new name for Global Warming.
I don't recall hearing the reason for the renaming. Rebranding. Whatever.
Not just doctors and the AMA. All kinds of work requires licenses. Even tour guides and interior decorators, in some places.
The "protect the consumer" argument is most obviously bullshit in those cases. Will a customer end up dead or crippled if someone tells tourists nonsense about the maple trees in front of the old courthouse, or abuses the Sherwin-Williams color palette?
The Institute for Justice challenges these sorts of things, a lot. https://ij.org/
Not just now, of course. The Grant administration was notoriously corrupt, as was Tammany Hall. Teapot Dome. Transcontinental railroad. If someone isn't a millionaire when they enter the Congress, they sure are when they leave.
The more things government controls, the greater the opportunities for corruption.
Guess who likes so-called "Net Neutrality"? It's not just do-gooders.
Another instance of "the Baptist and the bootlegger".. Do-gooders and do-badders can end up as allies, unbeknownst to the do-gooders. Far too often, the bad guys have a better understanding of the issues involved and the actual consequences. And after the dust settles and the bad consequences arise, the do-gooders want more legislation. And the do-badders quietly help the new legislation along. https://duckduckgocom/?q=bapti...
Wise. Wish I'd waited a week or three. Or more.
Waiting a week or three would have been a good move on my part. Give everyone more time to adjust.
NoScript really sped things up for me, apparently. Or maybe the new FF is just slow -- the opposite of what it was supposed to be.
NoScript is coming back "very soon now". Not soon enough. I'm really missing it.
On the plus side, Unfriend Finder is working now. I wonder if that will go away after NoScript comes back?
A couple of links. One with graph, one without.
Some groups of bird species seem to be smarter than the brain and body mass numbers would suggest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It seems I was FOS regarding the cetaceans. They are on both sides -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- of the line.
The moral of the story: in your sex toys, always use only open-source software that you compiled yourself.
Because I didn't RTFA, I don't know if the article and/or headline and/or summary is sloppy in its math or unaware of the difference between a transaction and a block. Or in its estimate of how much electricity a typical (presumably American) house uses in a week. So it would be inappropriate for me to quip: Unless you're Al Gore, in which case it only takes about two days.
Instead, I'll just note that if Bram Cohen's "proofs of space and time" variant works out -- https://chia.network/ -- the cost of at least one cryptocurrency should not have that problem.
And if my understanding is correct, it will cost less and less to produce over time, as the price of storage declines. (Presumably this will be a feature, rather than a bug.)
I blame Newcomen and Watt.