I hate to tell you, but you are not a camel or a polar bear. The fact that mammals were here for 80 million years in adverse conditions means absolutely dick to this conversation. We are concerned about what the earth was like when HUMANS were here. Because, you know, that is what we are. And the climate over the last 10,000 years especially, because it has been very good to us.
But the chicken little approach combined with send-all-power-to-a-central-world-government seems just a little bit suspect to me. As a matter of fact, it's more than a little suspect. It too is in the real of F**K NO.
Evidently you suffered a stroke before you hit post and thought you were in a whole different thread, but let me address this anyway. A little bit of chicken little is actually justified, because the last time we had a rapid climate change event 70,000 years ago, WE ALMOST WENT EXTINCT! So, maybe being a little proactive isn't as irrational as you seem to suggest.
The Amiga hardware was amazing. But what I miss the most was the software! I still have yet to find a text editor as solid and flexible as CygnusEd. The hex editor I used was beautiful, super fast (because it was written in assembly) and rock solid. When I had to make the inevitable change to windows, I was so disappointed in the quality of software, and the CONSTANT CRASHING! Sure, my Amiga gave me the guru every once in a while, usually when I did something that I knew was stupid, but windows elevated it to a whole new level.
And, honestly, if you released some of the unpolished, buggy software that I see even today as shareware for the Amiga, you would have been laughed out of the scene.
The sanctity of states rights is not a defensible position in all cases. It wasn't that long ago that a collection of states decided that maintaining slavery as a practice was good for them. Like it or not, state governments aren't magically able to determine the right actions more than the rest of us, especially if the consequences of their decisions extend beyond their own borders. If Wisconsin decided to dump all of it's waste in the Mississippi River, there is no reason why their right to self determination should override the states south of them. Hence, it would be appropriate for the federal government to step in. It's not as if these states aren't represented in the federal government.
Investigators also said OneVoice didn’t turn explicitly political until days after the grant period ended.
Evidently there was an investigation, hence investigators, at least according to the source you linked. Maybe you should stop rushing to post first and, you know, read.
Or, you know, not spend the multi trillions it would take to relocate 80% of humanity from coast lands, and make a few hundred billion by switching to a green economy instead. Just sayin.
Maybe because it reads like a rant. He barely gets 2 paragraphs into the thing before he starts talking about liberal media bias.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we
rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral
preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences,
media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices:
He constantly talks about "psychological facts" which he is either unable or unwilling to cite. What citations he does provide are usually to summaries of single surveys. And mostly he spends his time saying that mandatory bias training is scaring off the conservative snowflakes. Stop pretending that this document was on par with the origin of species. It was a rant, that's all.
I know that he refers to himself as a "classical liberal", but, as I have said before, cramming feathers up your ass does not make you a duck.
I'm 99% sure that they can get their domain registered through an Iranian registrar. Just because you can't get a.com doesn't mean you are being censored. In the same way that just because you can't get published in Nature doesn't mean you can't get published in another journal.
I don't know what it is for everywhere, but I can tell you what it is for a farm that is producing well. That would be "whatever it currently is." I'm pretty sure the answer will never be hotter. In fact, in my neck of the woods, the peach crop was ruined this year because we didn't get enough cold hours. Provided this is a trend, it will destroy the entire industry here. Take that, and multiply it times every field everywhere, and then you can see the true "cost" of global climate change.
The same could be said about the human body. Your doctor can't tell you when or what you will die of, but that doesn't mean you should stop listening to him. And if he tells you that you are diabetic, you better damn sure take the insulin.
Congrats on being posting the umpteen millionth slashdot eugenics post. First of all, since you are such a fan of the scientific method, allow me to refresh you. Until you find a BIOLOGICAL part of the brain that is significantly different in men and women, and can show that it influences a certain pattern of behavior, by contrasting it with men and women who have say, damage in the same area, you aren't concluding anything. All you can say with confidence is that you have drawn a statistical correlation with women and stem fields. You know precisely dick about what is causing it. And blanketly blaming it on their boobs is about as scientific as astrology.
And, for argument's sake, lets assume that you are right. That women have a genetic propensity to be . That means precisely dick in the real world too. Every human alive has a genetic propensity to avoid self harm, but I watched a friend of mine burn his tattoo off of his arm with an iron. If a company thinks it can benefit from the perspective of a certain number of female engineers and wants to hire them, you shouldn't assume they are just looking for housewives with glasses. There are plenty of ladies I have worked with that can handle the stress as well or better than men.
Just because you don't know any says more about your dating life than it does about the genetic propensities of women.
I like to forage on the weekends, and I have bad news for you. All of humanity is sustained off of mono-crops and has been so for thousands of years. The vast variety of edible plants in the wild is staggering, but we have selected and cross bread only a few over the centuries. And you might think we chose the best, but often times, we only chose the most convenient.
In a week or two I will go down to the creek bottoms and harvest pounds of pawpaw fruit. It is a delicious, plentiful and large fruit that can be cultivated in your yard. However, it doesn't keep well, and therefore has not been turned into a staple crop.
The satsumas in my front yard are grafted to a naturally occurring bitter orange (trifolate orange) root stock, which is much more resistant to disease than the poor plants we have engineered over time. However, as the name suggests, they are very bitter, and would have to be bred for a long time to become palatable.
Of the vast variety of food plants on this planet, we eat only the tiniest percentage and mostly because they are convenient to grow. In fact, mostly just wheat, corn, and rice. While I understand the concerns of putting all our eggs in one GMO basket, it's a good idea to remember that we backed ourselves into the corner well before GMO came into the picture.
Actually, this doesn't take mortality into consideration. You need more than 2 kids per couple to replenish a generation. I think I remember reading that it was something like 2.2 kids per female. That said, people can more easily live to be great-grandparents these days. Despite that, the US would be, and would have been for a while now, in a population decline already without immigration (women have 1.84 babies per at the current rate).
Religious and republicans are certainly more likely to donate to RELIGIOUS charities. And don't forget that overhead for the church is considered a charity for the purpose of statistics. So on behalf of all atheist liberals, kindly pick your cherries from a better tree: Like here.
Oh, and you might want to give some thought to the fact that those charitable institutions that your so gladly give your money to, are overwhelmingly run by liberals. (the statistical conclusion, not mine)
I am a Data Scientist who has no degree, and respectfully, you sound like the one with a chip on your shoulder. Just because you don't learn them from school doesn't mean you can't learn algorithms on your own, and frankly, the ones they teach in most colleges are pitifully simplistic. I work with 30 or so college grads, and thanks to the decades of love for programming I have, I am the one most of them come to with advice as to how to complete their projects. In all this time, I find the 2 things that matter the most in making a good programmer are interest and initiative. In this industry in particular, if you don't have the ability to re-learn your profession every 5 years, you will quickly become outmoded.
I particularly feel sorry for the current gen of grads. When I was college age, java wasn't even on the radar, and object oriented design wasn't even taught. There is a whole extra level of the science that you will never touch if you didn't start by banging around the hardware in ML on a c64. I occasionally bring up blitters and miniterms in conversation, and all I get is blank stares.
Now, it is all fine and dandy that they don't NEED to know these things to be competent programmers, but it does illustrate that there are vast swaths of computer science that aren't even remotely touched by most Comp Sci programs. You get your degree, great! Congratulations on getting a strong foundation, now it is time to do the real work of learning and inventing. It's nice that you think the only way to acquire that knowledge is over 4 years while dedicating 40% of your time to Computer Science, while filling out your humanities and math in the other 60%, but it isn't the only road to mastery, especially today, with the easy availability of online resources.
Um, no. This is a precision weapon, as are all lasers. The idea is to focus the energy at the smallest possible point to cause the most damage. If you have clicked through to TFA you would have seen it knock out a very small part of a boat target, leaving the rest unharmed. And area much smaller than one human body. Saying this is an indiscriminate weapon is like saying a sniper rifle is a weapon of mass destruction.
Then imagine the damage caused by semi's hauling freight back and forth across the nation at all hours of the day and night.... Maybe we should levee a tax on walmart commensurate with the damage it's "warehouse on wheels" causes to public roadways.....
Jesus, how do these things get modded up? Theft is when someone take from you and gives you nothing in return. Taxation is what you pay to live in a certain society, and is paid back to you in the form of things that enhance your life directly, or things that enhance your economy so that you have MUH MONIES in the first place (see free roads.) If you have such a problem with taxes, you can elect representatives to repeal them, or take the ultimate libertarian option and move to the arctic circle.
I'm so sick of this childish fantasy that someone could squat in a shack in the middle of the woods somewhere with no utilities or roads and run a fortune 500 company if only the government would stop taking MUH MONIES!
Wake up, you were born into a first world nation that was willing to provide you with education and basic social services, and you are still choosing to live in and benefit from those services. If taxation is theft, then you are living off of theft. Period. Do the moral thing and move somewhere else more in line with your ideals. Like Rawanda or Hati, or some other hell hole where the government is toothless and you can be "free" to do whatever you want.
Modern libertarianism is just rampant greed disguised as a philosophy of government.
I second this! In fact, only the truly idiotic would spend good, hard earned money to watch a movie when perfectly good books are available! In point of fact, why waste money on printed material when one can sit around a fire and listen to stories told by their ancestors!
Geez. I would say there is always one, but the fact you are currently modded +4 insightful proves you aren't the only Luddite on here. News for nerds indeed.
The president has the legal ability to do a lot of things, but violating the protections of the constitution is not one of them. This is precisely what the courts are deciding. It has nothing to do with "does he have the power." It has everything to do with "Does this particular proclamation violate the constitution?" Which is exactly what the courts are trying to decide. And the fact that he called publicly for a muslim ban DOES belong in those deliberations, representing clear intent to infringe on the first amendment. The courts are doing exactly what the courts are intended to do.
And meanwhile, in the real world, we like to use the courts to protect the CONSTITUTIONALITY of our laws. There are a lot of sneaky ways to deny people their rights, and getting at the reason something was enacted is PRECISELY what the courts are charged to do. Especially considering almost nobody from these countries were involved in actual terrorism . I think his motives are quite clear, as he stated, and I believe that they violate the first amendment, regardless of whether he has the power to issue such proclamations.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump chose to look like an orange raccoon. The difference would seem obvious.
But the chicken little approach combined with send-all-power-to-a-central-world-government seems just a little bit suspect to me. As a matter of fact, it's more than a little suspect. It too is in the real of F**K NO.
Evidently you suffered a stroke before you hit post and thought you were in a whole different thread, but let me address this anyway. A little bit of chicken little is actually justified, because the last time we had a rapid climate change event 70,000 years ago, WE ALMOST WENT EXTINCT! So, maybe being a little proactive isn't as irrational as you seem to suggest.
The Amiga hardware was amazing. But what I miss the most was the software! I still have yet to find a text editor as solid and flexible as CygnusEd. The hex editor I used was beautiful, super fast (because it was written in assembly) and rock solid. When I had to make the inevitable change to windows, I was so disappointed in the quality of software, and the CONSTANT CRASHING! Sure, my Amiga gave me the guru every once in a while, usually when I did something that I knew was stupid, but windows elevated it to a whole new level.
:(
And, honestly, if you released some of the unpolished, buggy software that I see even today as shareware for the Amiga, you would have been laughed out of the scene.
I need to stop before I get misty eyed
The sanctity of states rights is not a defensible position in all cases. It wasn't that long ago that a collection of states decided that maintaining slavery as a practice was good for them. Like it or not, state governments aren't magically able to determine the right actions more than the rest of us, especially if the consequences of their decisions extend beyond their own borders. If Wisconsin decided to dump all of it's waste in the Mississippi River, there is no reason why their right to self determination should override the states south of them. Hence, it would be appropriate for the federal government to step in. It's not as if these states aren't represented in the federal government.
Investigators also said OneVoice didn’t turn explicitly political until days after the grant period ended.
Evidently there was an investigation, hence investigators, at least according to the source you linked. Maybe you should stop rushing to post first and, you know, read.
Or, you know, not spend the multi trillions it would take to relocate 80% of humanity from coast lands, and make a few hundred billion by switching to a green economy instead. Just sayin.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we
rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral
preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences,
media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices:
He constantly talks about "psychological facts" which he is either unable or unwilling to cite. What citations he does provide are usually to summaries of single surveys. And mostly he spends his time saying that mandatory bias training is scaring off the conservative snowflakes. Stop pretending that this document was on par with the origin of species. It was a rant, that's all.
I know that he refers to himself as a "classical liberal", but, as I have said before, cramming feathers up your ass does not make you a duck.
I'm 99% sure that they can get their domain registered through an Iranian registrar. Just because you can't get a .com doesn't mean you are being censored. In the same way that just because you can't get published in Nature doesn't mean you can't get published in another journal.
[quote] He self-identified as a "classical liberal" in the document, which I doubt you bothered to read.[\quote]
Cramming feathers up your ass does not make you a duck.
I read it, and it is basically gibberish. His "citations" are a joke.
I don't know what it is for everywhere, but I can tell you what it is for a farm that is producing well. That would be "whatever it currently is." I'm pretty sure the answer will never be hotter. In fact, in my neck of the woods, the peach crop was ruined this year because we didn't get enough cold hours. Provided this is a trend, it will destroy the entire industry here. Take that, and multiply it times every field everywhere, and then you can see the true "cost" of global climate change.
The same could be said about the human body. Your doctor can't tell you when or what you will die of, but that doesn't mean you should stop listening to him. And if he tells you that you are diabetic, you better damn sure take the insulin.
Congrats on being posting the umpteen millionth slashdot eugenics post. First of all, since you are such a fan of the scientific method, allow me to refresh you. Until you find a BIOLOGICAL part of the brain that is significantly different in men and women, and can show that it influences a certain pattern of behavior, by contrasting it with men and women who have say, damage in the same area, you aren't concluding anything. All you can say with confidence is that you have drawn a statistical correlation with women and stem fields. You know precisely dick about what is causing it. And blanketly blaming it on their boobs is about as scientific as astrology.
And, for argument's sake, lets assume that you are right. That women have a genetic propensity to be . That means precisely dick in the real world too. Every human alive has a genetic propensity to avoid self harm, but I watched a friend of mine burn his tattoo off of his arm with an iron. If a company thinks it can benefit from the perspective of a certain number of female engineers and wants to hire them, you shouldn't assume they are just looking for housewives with glasses. There are plenty of ladies I have worked with that can handle the stress as well or better than men.
Just because you don't know any says more about your dating life than it does about the genetic propensities of women.
It's okay to dismiss lunacy. Not everything is benign criticism.
Oh crap! You mean my career ended 15 years ago? Please don't tell my new boss.
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
I like to forage on the weekends, and I have bad news for you. All of humanity is sustained off of mono-crops and has been so for thousands of years. The vast variety of edible plants in the wild is staggering, but we have selected and cross bread only a few over the centuries. And you might think we chose the best, but often times, we only chose the most convenient.
In a week or two I will go down to the creek bottoms and harvest pounds of pawpaw fruit. It is a delicious, plentiful and large fruit that can be cultivated in your yard. However, it doesn't keep well, and therefore has not been turned into a staple crop.
The satsumas in my front yard are grafted to a naturally occurring bitter orange (trifolate orange) root stock, which is much more resistant to disease than the poor plants we have engineered over time. However, as the name suggests, they are very bitter, and would have to be bred for a long time to become palatable.
Of the vast variety of food plants on this planet, we eat only the tiniest percentage and mostly because they are convenient to grow. In fact, mostly just wheat, corn, and rice. While I understand the concerns of putting all our eggs in one GMO basket, it's a good idea to remember that we backed ourselves into the corner well before GMO came into the picture.
Actually, this doesn't take mortality into consideration. You need more than 2 kids per couple to replenish a generation. I think I remember reading that it was something like 2.2 kids per female. That said, people can more easily live to be great-grandparents these days. Despite that, the US would be, and would have been for a while now, in a population decline already without immigration (women have 1.84 babies per at the current rate).
Religious and republicans are certainly more likely to donate to RELIGIOUS charities. And don't forget that overhead for the church is considered a charity for the purpose of statistics. So on behalf of all atheist liberals, kindly pick your cherries from a better tree: Like here.
Oh, and you might want to give some thought to the fact that those charitable institutions that your so gladly give your money to, are overwhelmingly run by liberals. (the statistical conclusion, not mine)
I am a Data Scientist who has no degree, and respectfully, you sound like the one with a chip on your shoulder. Just because you don't learn them from school doesn't mean you can't learn algorithms on your own, and frankly, the ones they teach in most colleges are pitifully simplistic. I work with 30 or so college grads, and thanks to the decades of love for programming I have, I am the one most of them come to with advice as to how to complete their projects. In all this time, I find the 2 things that matter the most in making a good programmer are interest and initiative. In this industry in particular, if you don't have the ability to re-learn your profession every 5 years, you will quickly become outmoded.
I particularly feel sorry for the current gen of grads. When I was college age, java wasn't even on the radar, and object oriented design wasn't even taught. There is a whole extra level of the science that you will never touch if you didn't start by banging around the hardware in ML on a c64. I occasionally bring up blitters and miniterms in conversation, and all I get is blank stares.
Now, it is all fine and dandy that they don't NEED to know these things to be competent programmers, but it does illustrate that there are vast swaths of computer science that aren't even remotely touched by most Comp Sci programs. You get your degree, great! Congratulations on getting a strong foundation, now it is time to do the real work of learning and inventing. It's nice that you think the only way to acquire that knowledge is over 4 years while dedicating 40% of your time to Computer Science, while filling out your humanities and math in the other 60%, but it isn't the only road to mastery, especially today, with the easy availability of online resources.
Um, no. This is a precision weapon, as are all lasers. The idea is to focus the energy at the smallest possible point to cause the most damage. If you have clicked through to TFA you would have seen it knock out a very small part of a boat target, leaving the rest unharmed. And area much smaller than one human body. Saying this is an indiscriminate weapon is like saying a sniper rifle is a weapon of mass destruction.
Then imagine the damage caused by semi's hauling freight back and forth across the nation at all hours of the day and night.... Maybe we should levee a tax on walmart commensurate with the damage it's "warehouse on wheels" causes to public roadways.....
Jesus, how do these things get modded up? Theft is when someone take from you and gives you nothing in return. Taxation is what you pay to live in a certain society, and is paid back to you in the form of things that enhance your life directly, or things that enhance your economy so that you have MUH MONIES in the first place (see free roads.) If you have such a problem with taxes, you can elect representatives to repeal them, or take the ultimate libertarian option and move to the arctic circle.
I'm so sick of this childish fantasy that someone could squat in a shack in the middle of the woods somewhere with no utilities or roads and run a fortune 500 company if only the government would stop taking MUH MONIES!
Wake up, you were born into a first world nation that was willing to provide you with education and basic social services, and you are still choosing to live in and benefit from those services. If taxation is theft, then you are living off of theft. Period. Do the moral thing and move somewhere else more in line with your ideals. Like Rawanda or Hati, or some other hell hole where the government is toothless and you can be "free" to do whatever you want.
Modern libertarianism is just rampant greed disguised as a philosophy of government.
I second this! In fact, only the truly idiotic would spend good, hard earned money to watch a movie when perfectly good books are available! In point of fact, why waste money on printed material when one can sit around a fire and listen to stories told by their ancestors!
Geez. I would say there is always one, but the fact you are currently modded +4 insightful proves you aren't the only Luddite on here. News for nerds indeed.
By using their freedom of speech in an unpopular way...
The president has the legal ability to do a lot of things, but violating the protections of the constitution is not one of them. This is precisely what the courts are deciding. It has nothing to do with "does he have the power." It has everything to do with "Does this particular proclamation violate the constitution?" Which is exactly what the courts are trying to decide. And the fact that he called publicly for a muslim ban DOES belong in those deliberations, representing clear intent to infringe on the first amendment. The courts are doing exactly what the courts are intended to do.
And meanwhile, in the real world, we like to use the courts to protect the CONSTITUTIONALITY of our laws. There are a lot of sneaky ways to deny people their rights, and getting at the reason something was enacted is PRECISELY what the courts are charged to do. Especially considering almost nobody from these countries were involved in actual terrorism . I think his motives are quite clear, as he stated, and I believe that they violate the first amendment, regardless of whether he has the power to issue such proclamations.