And a mental illness doesn't necessarily kill you in a few years while many cancers do. What's your point?
They're both undesirable and if possible something we'd like to cure. If we can fix a person's mental issues and they truly believe that they were happier in their original state I suppose they can always go back. I would imagine you'd get that response at a similar rate as people with cancer who would like their tumor back.
Good luck with the current police unions in place. A copy pretty much have to go to jail before they'll get tossed out, and cops can get away with practically anything. Even if they do actually get charged, the odds are still slim against a conviction.
It wasn't terribly long ago that you could claim that no non-white person had ever been elected president. Personally I think nominating Hillary makes the Democrats lose for sure as she's more reviled by enough voters that it gives the Republican candidate a bump, no matter who it is. Sanders might lose the general election, but I believe he at least has a chance to win.
I don't think the Democrats want him though, because he's too far left of the bulk of their party and Clinton knows how to play ball. Sanders would probably be the best overall candidate of those with any chance of being the next President, if only because I think he has the most integrity among all the candidates. That's also why he probably won't win, but I'd like to be wrong.
We stopped going to the moon because we beat the Soviet Union and they eventually collapsed. The space race was a dick waving contest with the possibility of learning how to put weapons in orbit.
The only reason the U.S. goes back to the moon will be because China wants to try doing it. Otherwise a moon landing is in the hands of the rich entrepreneurs who are holding their own private dick waving contests.
They're also owned by Rupert Murdoch who's on the opposite end of the spectrum of the people who tend to complain about a lack of minorities in computing fields. I suppose they both tend to be authoritarian twats, but I doubt you'd catch anyone that far to the left touching anything of Murdoch's unless they're going to toss it on a fire.
My guess is that it's just a lack of education on the part of the immigrant labor that's picking the produce. Tell them it's a health risk and make sure that they have something to wash their hands and that will probably go a long way to solve the problem.
Also, a lot of this type of work is being done by people who aren't here legally. If you think a solution with mandatory hand washing observation is going to work, I don't think you've thought this through all that well.
You can't prove that they would have paid to see the movie, but if they've downloaded a copy of it from the internet, it's hard to argue that the person had no interest in seeing it at all.
Also if you look at the worldwide gross, it took in about $200 million, so it's probably one of those movies that's popular overseas more than it is in the U.S. Add in eventual television rights or video sales and it probably made a tidy sum of money for the studio.
You know, they could hire some H1B1's to replace the expensive CEOs that are getting $70 million golden parachutes. I bet an Indian CEO would do just as good if not better and do it all for a $70,000 golden parachute.
If you don't accept that the scientific method is a viable approach to uncovering the manner in which the universe behaves, I would ask why you don't step off the ledge at the top of a tall building. If you believe that experimentation or empirical data is unnecessary to establish the veracity of some claim I would ask why you would not purchase from me a potion for the sum of $100 that I claim will make you $10000 richer on the morrow.
Someone might be able to talk a commendable piece of bullshit, but they will rarely act on such foolishness at their own expense. Philosophy made itself pointless and obsolete with the creation of the scientific method and it has become little more than religion for the modern age.
Schmidt has always been an idiot in these kinds of matters. He either doesn't understand why some people would be freaked out by his solution or not trust it, or he realizes that but doesn't care.
This will work until governments start using it to censor speech that most people feel should be heard. Then the service will collapse and be replaced by something that is more free.
People need to understand that if you don't like what someone is saying, the way to stop them isn't to censor them or limit their speech, it's to use your own free speech to tell everyone why they're wrong. Suppressing speech does nothing to changes the hearts and minds of those who might agree with it and only serves to make that person appear a victim of your oppression, no matter how pure your motives may be. If you want to shut down terrorist groups like ISIS on social media, the best way to do so is to ridicule them. Who wants to join a group that's a complete laughingstock?
We don't have to, but we probably should to some degree. No matter how much any one country cleans up its own act, it still faces the consequences from the decisions of the rest of the world.
Of course helping doesn't have to mean throwing money at the problem that's likely to disappear into the pockets of corrupt leadership. It could be as simple as shouldering the R&D burden for find solutions that reduce pollution and then giving those away to the developing nations so that they minimize their environmental impact.
I just picked up a Surface Book in store recently after calling for about 2 weeks before they had any stock available, so I think they've had reasonably good sales or at least they don't have stock piling up in a warehouse somewhere. Of course that could also mean they didn't make enough units to keep up with the demand, so it's hard to say.
Personally, I tend to lean towards the sales actually being good. Microsoft has finally managed to design a compelling product and get people interested in it. Beyond general market interest, I suspect that there have been a lot of Microsoft/Windows fans who have been waiting for this kind of moment and so they're getting a sales bump from that as well.
I'll admit I jumped in mostly out of tech lust. The idea of a larger format tablet was interesting, but I already have an iPad so I wasn't keen on getting a Pro. The notebook/tablet hybrid concept was also a bit of a draw as I've never liked the cover style keyboards for tablets. It's by no means a perfect device and there is plenty of room for refinement, but Microsoft has done a good job executing for a change, so I'm hardly surprised that they're seeing some success as a result. Nadella is proving to be a good CEO for the company.
Exactly my sentiments. Problem solving skills are important no matter what discipline a person may enter into or as you put it, just generally useful skills for life. If a person's job requires no more thought than that of a mindless drone, odds are that someone can build a robot or a computer to do that job more efficiently.
Programming isn't the only way to teach those skills to kids, but it is a rather good one and with computing becoming so ubiquitous, odds are that there's some overlap between computing and the interests of most young people which does help with buy in.
I understand that this is important news, but it doesn't really seem to fit with Slashdot's theme of news for nerds. I suppose if it were at some event that was tech/nerd related there would be enough of a reason, but this apparently has nothing to do with either of those things.
But I suppose it will generate a lot of page views and ad impressions for Dice as people rehash the same arguments over and over again.
You're surprised that an organization that is pro-gun doesn't given many donations to politicians in the party that is largely anti-gun? Please explain how that's any indication of corruption.
The NRA doesn't even crack the top 50 in terms of money spent and looking at that list, most of the top organizations given heavily to one party or the other. Only 7 of the 50 are shaded gray and have close to an even split.
Actually it would be W.O.R.E.S. considering its name is the Wikipedia Objective Revision Evaluation Service.
But now that you mention it they missed a golden opportunity to call it the Holistic Objective Revision Evaluation Service or something along those lines.
However I object to the term 'ontological confusions', some people's philosophies aren't founded on logic; if logic is cast aside, then internal/external consistency aren't necessarily valid ways to judge a philosophy's validity. As a metaphor, someone might say "I do not recognize the validity of this court."
Hogwash.
A person who's philosophy does not recognize the validity of gravity is still subject to it. Whether a person believes a thing to be true or not does not change objective fact.
Actually science has isolated the individual gene that's responsible for sex differentiation in humans. Technically it's possible for it to end up on an X chromosome or be absent from a Y chromosome, but it's very unlikely which is why such things aren't seen often. Also, many of the aberrations from the XX / XY dichotomy result in sterility, which does go a rather long way towards suggesting humans and mammals in general are sexually dimorphic and that while it's possible to exist outside of that binary, it's not viable from a reproduction point of view so those traits aren't passed on. A lot of those are either responsible for or comorbid with other undesirable medical conditions which would probably make them less viable even if they didn't result in sterility.
If you have a the SRY gene you're male, if you don't, you're female. It's that simple. It says nothing else about you. Even though sex and gender are strongly correlated, there's plenty of scientific evidence that suggests that being transgender is a legitimate condition and not something that people are making up. Interestingly enough, the studies determined this by looking at the brains of transgender individuals and comparing them against the areas that differ based on sex and found that in many ways a transgender person has a brain that looks more like the brain of the sex they feel like they should be than the brain of the sex that they are.
Seems doubtful. The only reason to use the Brave New World approach and create a drone caste is because Huxley couldn't imagine a world where sophisticated robots could do most of the mundane jobs. In such a world, there's no sense to creating an unintelligent human to do some tedious task because a robot will be able to do it better and won't have to stop. You're better off creating some highly intelligent people that can design better robots.
The only way I can see it being used in a cruel manner would be if someone could figure out how to engineer people that would be perfect slaves (i.e., they just want to work and don't care if they're mistreated, etc.) but I don't know if you could make a person who's highly intelligent and capable of solving complex problems requiring some level of creativity while destroying free will.
IQ is defined such that 100 is the median for a population no matter how smart they are. If we created tube babies genetically designed to have a higher IQ and be rocket scientists, then the scale would shift such that 100 is the new midpoint for the distribution.
Comparatively, such babies if measured on the current scale for the U.S. population might rate, 140 or higher and if you tried to incorporate them into the same population, you'd get a lumpy distribution (it would look like another hump on the far side of the curve) which would suggest the two populations aren't the same and should be treated as distinct.
I don't own either system, but from what I understand they both run some kind of operating system that's always running in the background and gets summoned if a user pauses the game to bring it up. I don't know if it's massively useful, but I understand that both consoles are supposed to be able to stream a player's game play out to the internet, so I assume that's one of the reasons they have reserved CPU cores and memory.
Also, I'm not sure that the extra core will be terribly useful. I'm still seeing a lot of modern games that mostly just peg 1/2 cores on my CPU while the others are mostly idle. I did hope that the move for consoles to have that many cores would push the developers to start making games that aren't confined to a single, powerful core, but I think that most of the older, seasoned veterans that excel at game programming cut their teeth in an environment where multi-threading or multiple cores weren't useful or available and have shied away from fully utilizing the modern high-end CPUs that we have.
Slashdot Mirror
And a mental illness doesn't necessarily kill you in a few years while many cancers do. What's your point?
They're both undesirable and if possible something we'd like to cure. If we can fix a person's mental issues and they truly believe that they were happier in their original state I suppose they can always go back. I would imagine you'd get that response at a similar rate as people with cancer who would like their tumor back.
Good luck with the current police unions in place. A copy pretty much have to go to jail before they'll get tossed out, and cops can get away with practically anything. Even if they do actually get charged, the odds are still slim against a conviction.
It wasn't terribly long ago that you could claim that no non-white person had ever been elected president. Personally I think nominating Hillary makes the Democrats lose for sure as she's more reviled by enough voters that it gives the Republican candidate a bump, no matter who it is. Sanders might lose the general election, but I believe he at least has a chance to win.
I don't think the Democrats want him though, because he's too far left of the bulk of their party and Clinton knows how to play ball. Sanders would probably be the best overall candidate of those with any chance of being the next President, if only because I think he has the most integrity among all the candidates. That's also why he probably won't win, but I'd like to be wrong.
We stopped going to the moon because we beat the Soviet Union and they eventually collapsed. The space race was a dick waving contest with the possibility of learning how to put weapons in orbit.
The only reason the U.S. goes back to the moon will be because China wants to try doing it. Otherwise a moon landing is in the hands of the rich entrepreneurs who are holding their own private dick waving contests.
They're also owned by Rupert Murdoch who's on the opposite end of the spectrum of the people who tend to complain about a lack of minorities in computing fields. I suppose they both tend to be authoritarian twats, but I doubt you'd catch anyone that far to the left touching anything of Murdoch's unless they're going to toss it on a fire.
Which the government could easily spare us of needing if they'd only quit illegally spying on their citizens.
But who observes the observers?
My guess is that it's just a lack of education on the part of the immigrant labor that's picking the produce. Tell them it's a health risk and make sure that they have something to wash their hands and that will probably go a long way to solve the problem.
Also, a lot of this type of work is being done by people who aren't here legally. If you think a solution with mandatory hand washing observation is going to work, I don't think you've thought this through all that well.
Or just call PETA and they'll take care of the problem for you.
You can't prove that they would have paid to see the movie, but if they've downloaded a copy of it from the internet, it's hard to argue that the person had no interest in seeing it at all.
Also if you look at the worldwide gross, it took in about $200 million, so it's probably one of those movies that's popular overseas more than it is in the U.S. Add in eventual television rights or video sales and it probably made a tidy sum of money for the studio.
You know, they could hire some H1B1's to replace the expensive CEOs that are getting $70 million golden parachutes. I bet an Indian CEO would do just as good if not better and do it all for a $70,000 golden parachute.
I'm surprised that they even allowed an organization named Bro to participate given how offensive it is.
In what sense?
If you don't accept that the scientific method is a viable approach to uncovering the manner in which the universe behaves, I would ask why you don't step off the ledge at the top of a tall building. If you believe that experimentation or empirical data is unnecessary to establish the veracity of some claim I would ask why you would not purchase from me a potion for the sum of $100 that I claim will make you $10000 richer on the morrow.
Someone might be able to talk a commendable piece of bullshit, but they will rarely act on such foolishness at their own expense. Philosophy made itself pointless and obsolete with the creation of the scientific method and it has become little more than religion for the modern age.
Schmidt has always been an idiot in these kinds of matters. He either doesn't understand why some people would be freaked out by his solution or not trust it, or he realizes that but doesn't care.
This will work until governments start using it to censor speech that most people feel should be heard. Then the service will collapse and be replaced by something that is more free.
People need to understand that if you don't like what someone is saying, the way to stop them isn't to censor them or limit their speech, it's to use your own free speech to tell everyone why they're wrong. Suppressing speech does nothing to changes the hearts and minds of those who might agree with it and only serves to make that person appear a victim of your oppression, no matter how pure your motives may be. If you want to shut down terrorist groups like ISIS on social media, the best way to do so is to ridicule them. Who wants to join a group that's a complete laughingstock?
We don't have to, but we probably should to some degree. No matter how much any one country cleans up its own act, it still faces the consequences from the decisions of the rest of the world.
Of course helping doesn't have to mean throwing money at the problem that's likely to disappear into the pockets of corrupt leadership. It could be as simple as shouldering the R&D burden for find solutions that reduce pollution and then giving those away to the developing nations so that they minimize their environmental impact.
I just picked up a Surface Book in store recently after calling for about 2 weeks before they had any stock available, so I think they've had reasonably good sales or at least they don't have stock piling up in a warehouse somewhere. Of course that could also mean they didn't make enough units to keep up with the demand, so it's hard to say.
Personally, I tend to lean towards the sales actually being good. Microsoft has finally managed to design a compelling product and get people interested in it. Beyond general market interest, I suspect that there have been a lot of Microsoft/Windows fans who have been waiting for this kind of moment and so they're getting a sales bump from that as well.
I'll admit I jumped in mostly out of tech lust. The idea of a larger format tablet was interesting, but I already have an iPad so I wasn't keen on getting a Pro. The notebook/tablet hybrid concept was also a bit of a draw as I've never liked the cover style keyboards for tablets. It's by no means a perfect device and there is plenty of room for refinement, but Microsoft has done a good job executing for a change, so I'm hardly surprised that they're seeing some success as a result. Nadella is proving to be a good CEO for the company.
Exactly my sentiments. Problem solving skills are important no matter what discipline a person may enter into or as you put it, just generally useful skills for life. If a person's job requires no more thought than that of a mindless drone, odds are that someone can build a robot or a computer to do that job more efficiently.
Programming isn't the only way to teach those skills to kids, but it is a rather good one and with computing becoming so ubiquitous, odds are that there's some overlap between computing and the interests of most young people which does help with buy in.
I understand that this is important news, but it doesn't really seem to fit with Slashdot's theme of news for nerds. I suppose if it were at some event that was tech/nerd related there would be enough of a reason, but this apparently has nothing to do with either of those things.
But I suppose it will generate a lot of page views and ad impressions for Dice as people rehash the same arguments over and over again.
You're surprised that an organization that is pro-gun doesn't given many donations to politicians in the party that is largely anti-gun? Please explain how that's any indication of corruption.
Would you also consider this corruption: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000083&cycle=2014.
The NRA doesn't even crack the top 50 in terms of money spent and looking at that list, most of the top organizations given heavily to one party or the other. Only 7 of the 50 are shaded gray and have close to an even split.
Actually it would be W.O.R.E.S. considering its name is the Wikipedia Objective Revision Evaluation Service.
But now that you mention it they missed a golden opportunity to call it the Holistic Objective Revision Evaluation Service or something along those lines.
However I object to the term 'ontological confusions', some people's philosophies aren't founded on logic; if logic is cast aside, then internal/external consistency aren't necessarily valid ways to judge a philosophy's validity. As a metaphor, someone might say "I do not recognize the validity of this court."
Hogwash.
A person who's philosophy does not recognize the validity of gravity is still subject to it. Whether a person believes a thing to be true or not does not change objective fact.
Actually science has isolated the individual gene that's responsible for sex differentiation in humans. Technically it's possible for it to end up on an X chromosome or be absent from a Y chromosome, but it's very unlikely which is why such things aren't seen often. Also, many of the aberrations from the XX / XY dichotomy result in sterility, which does go a rather long way towards suggesting humans and mammals in general are sexually dimorphic and that while it's possible to exist outside of that binary, it's not viable from a reproduction point of view so those traits aren't passed on. A lot of those are either responsible for or comorbid with other undesirable medical conditions which would probably make them less viable even if they didn't result in sterility.
If you have a the SRY gene you're male, if you don't, you're female. It's that simple. It says nothing else about you. Even though sex and gender are strongly correlated, there's plenty of scientific evidence that suggests that being transgender is a legitimate condition and not something that people are making up. Interestingly enough, the studies determined this by looking at the brains of transgender individuals and comparing them against the areas that differ based on sex and found that in many ways a transgender person has a brain that looks more like the brain of the sex they feel like they should be than the brain of the sex that they are.
Given that some people act as though they view obesity as a challenge instead of a health problem, I'm not so sure about that statement.
Seems doubtful. The only reason to use the Brave New World approach and create a drone caste is because Huxley couldn't imagine a world where sophisticated robots could do most of the mundane jobs. In such a world, there's no sense to creating an unintelligent human to do some tedious task because a robot will be able to do it better and won't have to stop. You're better off creating some highly intelligent people that can design better robots.
The only way I can see it being used in a cruel manner would be if someone could figure out how to engineer people that would be perfect slaves (i.e., they just want to work and don't care if they're mistreated, etc.) but I don't know if you could make a person who's highly intelligent and capable of solving complex problems requiring some level of creativity while destroying free will.
IQ is defined such that 100 is the median for a population no matter how smart they are. If we created tube babies genetically designed to have a higher IQ and be rocket scientists, then the scale would shift such that 100 is the new midpoint for the distribution.
Comparatively, such babies if measured on the current scale for the U.S. population might rate, 140 or higher and if you tried to incorporate them into the same population, you'd get a lumpy distribution (it would look like another hump on the far side of the curve) which would suggest the two populations aren't the same and should be treated as distinct.
I don't own either system, but from what I understand they both run some kind of operating system that's always running in the background and gets summoned if a user pauses the game to bring it up. I don't know if it's massively useful, but I understand that both consoles are supposed to be able to stream a player's game play out to the internet, so I assume that's one of the reasons they have reserved CPU cores and memory.
Also, I'm not sure that the extra core will be terribly useful. I'm still seeing a lot of modern games that mostly just peg 1/2 cores on my CPU while the others are mostly idle. I did hope that the move for consoles to have that many cores would push the developers to start making games that aren't confined to a single, powerful core, but I think that most of the older, seasoned veterans that excel at game programming cut their teeth in an environment where multi-threading or multiple cores weren't useful or available and have shied away from fully utilizing the modern high-end CPUs that we have.