Russiafags/Chinafags need to STFU and quit defending shitty countries doing shitty things and also INB4 saying the U.S. is shitty therefore somehow that justifies anyone else being shitty too.
?! how is pointing out factual error on the part of/. and reuters any of that? typical that/. is yet to correct this, even though reuters corrected this before/. posted this here with wrong info.
lots of logical fallacies don't count as a valid refutation, nor does down voting of my comment. all that only indicate the degeneration of this site from when i joined. no wonder there is ever less activity here. - 1st you presume to know what i "imply" without any evidence. 2nd you try to refute my alleged implied argument by pointing out allegedly more wasteful actions. one waste does not excuse another, and i didn't make an argument about waste 3rd you try to explain why scientific space missions and understanding jupiter and universe is important. !!!!
if you are capable of rationality, i suggest you read my comment and try to understand it, and if you disagree use valid arguments to refute its content.
"The report notes that "there's no indication" that there was intent to deceive anyone. Instead, it "appears to be a case of a TV presenter getting confused with what he believed to be 'modern robots.'""
let me get this straight, this story is nothing more than a tv presenter getting confused at a kids tech forum?
why is it on slashdot? because the guardian got confused at 2nd hand, thinking it was an actual deception by those evil russian? the guardian do seem to be getting confused a lot about russians.
nothing new here. trump is merely expressing openly what this arrest was from the start; typical and customary high handed tactic by usa to get other countries to obey its own absurd laws, and give its own substandard crony companies ( like apple) an unfair advantage. that was how chinese treated it from start.
"... investigation is reminiscent of banking and nuclear regulation. It involves deep cooperation..." "... government wants to focus on hate speech for now, so don't expect anyone from the privacy regulator..."
first, we know what happens with banking regulation; nothing at all (except bail outs) after 2008 fiasco, as far as banks are concerned.
that government wants to regulate "hate speech", a nebulous term subjectively defined by political ideology, should concern all who want their freedoms protected against would be political masters bent on controlling and suppressing speech and critics. that government doesn't want to regulate and protect citizens against violations of their right to privacy, mainly by the tech corp it is cooperating with to regulate "hate speech"(ie control speech), should increase that concern.
" discontinued customer service over piracy allegations"
allegations!
a tech/media corporate decides who allegedly committed alleged crimes (alleged "piracy", alleged "hate speech", alleged "election interference", etc are just the beginning) against related or fellow tech/media corporates or supporters, and deal out de-platforming punishment too. welcome to rule by big corporates, according to their rules and their courts.
too bad zdnet editors, and then/. editors in summery, failed to question the unwarranted assumption in the article that we know how a child learns, instead allowed, and even amplified, the reporter's uncritical parroting of the "researchers" pitch.
this is early stages of big tech corp version of newspeak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... while "ai" doesn't mean artificial intelligence, doing "good" means doing something that is in line with the elitist pseudo leftist ideology dominating in places like google.
who needs it? and why? and if they really need it, why are they not paying full cost? why should rest of people subsidize them? if there are benefits to the society at large from such subsidization, what are they? has such benefits manifested themselves in areas, like urban areas, where they already have this? are there costs and bad results from this? are they perhaps larger than benefits? or are the real beneficiaries not rural folk but tech corps? why should society at large subsidize them?
does anyone expect out of touch, corp beholden, corrupt elitist bureaucrats to raise, weigh, and answer, these kinds of questions honestly?
there are many forms of hatred; anyone can hate anything else. hatred is a feeling rising out of some value (usually but not limited to, moral) judgement (irrational, misguided, or not). not to tolerate hatred of any kind is to create a zombie like slavish society where no kind of free individual judgement is allowed. where only values and judgements allowed are those of the powers that be. actions against gab indicate, we are heading that way.
personally i think hatreds, of any kind, should be tolerated, and would be tolerated, in a healthy robust society confident of itself and its values. only perpetrators of actions that actually deprive others of same rights everyone enjoys(and are legally guaranteed through democratic means) should not be tolerated. [shooter should be banned after the action, gab should be free to continue as they want.] only weak authoritarian societies cannot tolerate hatred. again actions against gab indicate, we are becoming such a society,.
Ok but now you're saying stuff that has nothing to do with what you originally said. The question isn't whether minimum wage jobs and satisfying or not satisfying but whether you would do your current job for minimum wage. This logic seems to follow, given that you don't care what a job pays you.
you obviously didn't read or understand the full thread. "satisfaction", fulfillment, etc being the primary criteria in which to choose a career was my original (and consistent) point. jumping from that to question about minimum wage job, is too great a logical jump as i pointed out in my last comment. two subjects seem to have (as you say) "nothing to do with" each other; i would say they are connected by that unwarranted logical jump by ac.
how was it that first use case imagined for this fibre become space elevator? aren't there more down to earth already practicable use cases, where this fibre will replace some other fibre because it is better.
why assume a minimum wage job that is so low in demand, easily fulfilled by anyone, requiring no special skills, satisfying no special need, and having no other characteristic which gives job holder fulfillment, be the choice of anyone looking for a life long career that gives meaning and satisfaction to life? too great a logical jump.
there maybe a minimum wage job that gives fulfillment to some, but those people would be a small percentage, and probably in such cases, specific individual context in which the job is done, give job holders other satisfactions and benefits, that fulfill them; they probably wont do a similar job in another context.
there may be others holding a minimum wage job, while they prepare for or create some other career (say as an artist etc), but then minimum wage isn't the career choice.
apart from there being 4100 snaps, and there are 100,000( and growing) installs per day, there aren't any stats as far as i can see. did i miss a link?
?! why do you jump to conclusion that a job one is good at, and can enjoy, and give meaning and satisfaction to life, pays minimum wage? not very good with logic are you? at any rate we know cs is not for you!
pay should never be the main criteria for a life long career choice. quite apart making decision, based on short term relative differences in pay of different careers, while ignoring possible long term changes in relative pay as markets change, one should do something one is good at, and can enjoy, and give meaning and satisfaction to life. pay does help with some of that, but it should be a secondary consideration.
richard branson is an irrelevant bore. he made some money some time ago through conventional means in some noncompetitive market. good for him. now he is wasting it, to his his credit slowly, in order to pass himself as some sort of innovator and edgy personality. he try to act and dress he part too. boring!
Slashdot Mirror
Russiafags/Chinafags need to STFU and quit defending shitty countries doing shitty things and also INB4 saying the U.S. is shitty therefore somehow that justifies anyone else being shitty too.
?! /. and reuters any of that? /. is yet to correct this, even though reuters corrected this before /. posted this here with wrong info.
how is pointing out factual error on the part of
typical that
"(This story corrects to show Twitter saying suspicious traffic appears to be coming from China and Saudi Arabia, not China and Russia) "
seems reuters (and /.) has too much russia on its mind and sees russia everywhere.
lots of logical fallacies don't count as a valid refutation, nor does down voting of my comment. all that only indicate the degeneration of this site from when i joined. no wonder there is ever less activity here.
-
1st you presume to know what i "imply" without any evidence.
2nd you try to refute my alleged implied argument by pointing out allegedly more wasteful actions. one waste does not excuse another, and i didn't make an argument about waste
3rd you try to explain why scientific space missions and understanding jupiter and universe is important. !!!!
if you are capable of rationality, i suggest you read my comment and try to understand it, and if you disagree use valid arguments to refute its content.
these desperate attempts to justify cost of these missions by hastily claiming non existent new discoveries is counter productive.
"The report notes that "there's no indication" that there was intent to deceive anyone. Instead, it "appears to be a case of a TV presenter getting confused with what he believed to be 'modern robots.'""
let me get this straight, this story is nothing more than a tv presenter getting confused at a kids tech forum?
why is it on slashdot? because the guardian got confused at 2nd hand, thinking it was an actual deception by those evil russian? the guardian do seem to be getting confused a lot about russians.
nothing new here.
trump is merely expressing openly what this arrest was from the start; typical and customary high handed tactic by usa to get other countries to obey its own absurd laws, and give its own substandard crony companies ( like apple) an unfair advantage.
that was how chinese treated it from start.
"... investigation is reminiscent of banking and nuclear regulation. It involves deep cooperation ..."
"... government wants to focus on hate speech for now, so don't expect anyone from the privacy regulator..."
first, we know what happens with banking regulation; nothing at all (except bail outs) after 2008 fiasco, as far as banks are concerned.
that government wants to regulate "hate speech", a nebulous term subjectively defined by political ideology, should concern all who want their freedoms protected against would be political masters bent on controlling and suppressing speech and critics.
that government doesn't want to regulate and protect citizens against violations of their right to privacy, mainly by the tech corp it is cooperating with to regulate "hate speech"(ie control speech), should increase that concern.
nanny state regulation isn't the best option for either cigarettes or social media.
aren't we getting a bit ridiculous, expecting a socketed CPU in a computer the size of a ham sandwich?
no.
there are other computers, "the size of a ham sandwich", costing much less with much better specifications btw, which can be upgraded.
" discontinued customer service over piracy allegations"
allegations!
a tech/media corporate decides who allegedly committed alleged crimes (alleged "piracy", alleged "hate speech", alleged "election interference", etc are just the beginning) against related or fellow tech/media corporates or supporters, and deal out de-platforming punishment too.
welcome to rule by big corporates, according to their rules and their courts.
too bad zdnet editors, and then /. editors in summery, failed to question the unwarranted assumption in the article that we know how a child learns, instead allowed, and even amplified, the reporter's uncritical parroting of the "researchers" pitch.
simple. cater to those who pay the "cash", ie fans especially, and not to sjws.
this is early stages of big tech corp version of newspeak; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
while "ai" doesn't mean artificial intelligence, doing "good" means doing something that is in line with the elitist pseudo leftist ideology dominating in places like google.
this is also virtue signaling by definition.
who needs it? and why?
and if they really need it, why are they not paying full cost?
why should rest of people subsidize them?
if there are benefits to the society at large from such subsidization, what are they?
has such benefits manifested themselves in areas, like urban areas, where they already have this? are there costs and bad results from this? are they perhaps larger than benefits?
or are the real beneficiaries not rural folk but tech corps? why should society at large subsidize them?
does anyone expect out of touch, corp beholden, corrupt elitist bureaucrats to raise, weigh, and answer, these kinds of questions honestly?
...the hatred tolerated.
there are many forms of hatred; anyone can hate anything else.
hatred is a feeling rising out of some value (usually but not limited to, moral) judgement (irrational, misguided, or not).
not to tolerate hatred of any kind is to create a zombie like slavish society where no kind of free individual judgement is allowed. where only values and judgements allowed are those of the powers that be.
actions against gab indicate, we are heading that way.
personally i think hatreds, of any kind, should be tolerated, and would be tolerated, in a healthy robust society confident of itself and its values. only perpetrators of actions that actually deprive others of same rights everyone enjoys(and are legally guaranteed through democratic means) should not be tolerated. [shooter should be banned after the action, gab should be free to continue as they want.] only weak authoritarian societies cannot tolerate hatred.
again actions against gab indicate, we are becoming such a society,.
Ok but now you're saying stuff that has nothing to do with what you originally said. The question isn't whether minimum wage jobs and satisfying or not satisfying but whether you would do your current job for minimum wage. This logic seems to follow, given that you don't care what a job pays you.
you obviously didn't read or understand the full thread. "satisfaction", fulfillment, etc being the primary criteria in which to choose a career was my original (and consistent) point. jumping from that to question about minimum wage job, is too great a logical jump as i pointed out in my last comment.
two subjects seem to have (as you say) "nothing to do with" each other; i would say they are connected by that unwarranted logical jump by ac.
how was it that first use case imagined for this fibre become space elevator?
aren't there more down to earth already practicable use cases, where this fibre will replace some other fibre because it is better.
why assume a minimum wage job that is so low in demand, easily fulfilled by anyone, requiring no special skills, satisfying no special need, and having no other characteristic which gives job holder fulfillment, be the choice of anyone looking for a life long career that gives meaning and satisfaction to life? too great a logical jump.
there maybe a minimum wage job that gives fulfillment to some, but those people would be a small percentage, and probably in such cases, specific individual context in which the job is done, give job holders other satisfactions and benefits, that fulfill them; they probably wont do a similar job in another context.
there may be others holding a minimum wage job, while they prepare for or create some other career (say as an artist etc), but then minimum wage isn't the career choice.
apart from there being 4100 snaps, and there are 100,000( and growing) installs per day, there aren't any stats as far as i can see.
did i miss a link?
?!
why do you jump to conclusion that a job one is good at, and can enjoy, and give meaning and satisfaction to life, pays minimum wage?
not very good with logic are you? at any rate we know cs is not for you!
Even IBM agrees with that.
says 9to5mac.com.
pay should never be the main criteria for a life long career choice. quite apart making decision, based on short term relative differences in pay of different careers, while ignoring possible long term changes in relative pay as markets change, one should do something one is good at, and can enjoy, and give meaning and satisfaction to life. pay does help with some of that, but it should be a secondary consideration.
"today Tesla put the doubts to rest ..."
evidently not. by claiming that falsehood, among others, this report shows its bias, and unfounded optimism for tesla.
source for this ad is 9to5mac.com. enough said.
richard branson is an irrelevant bore.
he made some money some time ago through conventional means in some noncompetitive market. good for him.
now he is wasting it, to his his credit slowly, in order to pass himself as some sort of innovator and edgy personality. he try to act and dress he part too. boring!