People plant there because the land is cheap and the agricultural lobby has the local government wrapped around their finger for getting special concessions. It took massive public works (public money, private benefit) projects to produce much of the arable land. Then they had to go annex a bunch of seagull poop islands to fertilize the crap (but now moist) land.
One of the great ironies.. the east coast has a good watershead and extremely fertile land, but we moved so large chunks of our agriculture to regions with crappy land.
And want to hear something frightening about that? His common sense probably let a lot of child molesters go free. Family court judges are notorious for being dismissive about abuse claims and I know a lot of a adults who still bear a grudge because a judge would not believe one of their parents was abusing them. Sadly, your uncle is not a counter example, he is more likely an example of the problem.
Actually, people who work in domestic violence talk about that a lot. Know what happens? "oh, they must be making it up in order to get revenge on someone'
Yeah, so much better to just tell women they must be lieing and put up as many barriers to reporting as possible. Anything that might hurt men obviously takes priority over women, after all, they must have done something to deserve it, no?
Yes, it can. However, rape destroys lives too. Given how difficult it is to prosecute a case and how massively under reported it is, just how much do we need to think of the poor men when weighing things that might actually help victims? People are either forgetting (or simply do not care) that this is used to discredit rape victims at much higher rates. So all I can really read from this is 'men matter, women do not, anything that might hurt men but help women must be stopped!'
The problem is, too many people get their idea of how accusations pan out from MRA blogs then victims networks or even actual research. If even a tiny percentage of men have their lives ruined by women with false accusations it gets blown up in the only type of case that matters, thus women are assumed to be lying sluts unless they prove otherwise over and over and over, and even then they will be treated like they were 'probably' lying for the rest of their lives because 'so many cases of this happen!'. Even worse, many police and judges buy into this image too...
The more likely case is for every 500 guilty you will sweep up a handful of innocent. While the image of the false accuser is a powerful image in the public imagination, they are pretty rare and it is much more common for a victim to be pushed into dropping things due to the shame and harassment they get in their life.
Ahm, if charges were dropped, the person would not be on the list.
This story also assumes that she was lying and he was telling the truth, have you considered that he was lying? Most victims are given a hard enough time by going forward that they drop out of cases since they have to defend themselves over and over and fucking over from people saying 'well, it is probably just a false accusation, think of the men hurt by sluts like you!'. It gets really draining and a lot of women just give up because the process of going through the trial is just not worth it to get justice.
I see far more people getting raped and not believed then I see people being falsely accused, and this is coming from someone who has had people close to me in both categories.
The vast majority of the time, accusations are turned back on the accuser. There are occasional examples of the accusation ruining the accused, but most of the time people (including officers) assume the accusation is 'probably false' and treat the victim accordingly. Get raped, and generally one will be treated like they deserved it, or are making it up, or are just having regrets, or are simply trying to 'take advantage' of some innocent man.
Ahm, have you ever talked to someone who tried to report rape to the police? It is a real toss up regarding how 'serious' they take it, with many victims finding that the treatment they get from the police makes them question if they should have reported it in the first place. Shaming is so embedded in our culture that even well meaning officers usually end up treating the victim like it was their fault.
One thing to keep in mind is that the effect you get from high profile cases and how the remaining 99.99% can be vastly different. This kind of damage only really occurs either within a community (in which case, accuser or accused, the least popular person is the one who suffers) or if there is massive public attention to a case, which might only be 1 or 2 per year in a country the size of the US. When looking at best practices, we have to examine the common cases, the places where things can do the most harm or most good, NOT the super rare edge cases that get the spotlight.
Well, they do support the OS, just not the OSS drivers. For someone who's primary concern is getting their work done on these machines the differnce is not that important. The fight for an OSS driver is mostly due to philosophical and tinkerer issues.
Hardware and firmware often has a maze of IP behind them, not all of which is in nvida's power to ignore. Third party software, logic blocks, or even tools can make open sourcing things trikcy, and clearing such releases by the legal department can take non-trivial amounts of time and effort. It costs more than nothing to do it, and they have to weigh that against the possible benefit, which in this case is pretty small.
Dark matter IS a modeling error. Every time they talk about 'dark matter' they are talking about modeling error.
Having worked in physics, I can tell you that hunting for modeling and measurement errors is a great way to get funding. Finding a specific modeling error is a HUGE career boost, and papers are written all the time exploring possible errors and how they can be (or were) tested. Same with measurement errors, there was even a story on this very site a few months back about a paper being published going over an error in measurement once new techniques were able to correct for it and the impact it had on previously published results.
But to claim they are never talk about modeling errors represents a fundamental misunderstanding of research into dark matter or even the very concept of it. The whole point is that dark matter is an unattributed correction to current models that demonstrates that they are not correct, but the exact error has not been ferreted out yet. Once it is, 'dark matter' goes away.
As a consumer you can control which search engine you use.
As a business owner, you can choose which engine you work through, but you either play by Google's rules OR face potentially crippling reductions in your ability to reach consumers. If a company chooses the later, they run a real risk of going out of business.
When that company goes under, consumer choice beyond search engine are decreased. Individual consumers, even if they utilize other search engines to look for less visible companies do not significantly impact this process, yet it does impact them.
Again, you are thinking like an end user. Think from the perspective of a business owner who needs to reach consumers. Anti-trust laws are written to indirectly benefit consumers, primarily focusing on how businesses interact with each other and the effect that has on the market on the whole.
There are more people in the world then consumers, 'we' are not the end all and be all of markets.
I had a similar confusion since to the best of my knowledge this was a predicted outcome of some approaches to dark matter, and that this type of behavior is exactly what some people have been looking for.
Scientists are looking into 2 and 3 just as much. 2 tends to not get much attention since that tends to be dull and very detailed work, but piece by piece possible errors have been eliminated or corrected. 3 and 1 are the same basic problem, there is an error somewhere but figuring out where has proven difficult. Several models have been proposed, but that involves either exotic matter not covered by current models or adjustment for new phenomena. Wondering why they have not been ruled out demonstrates lack of domain knowledge and awareness of what is being worked on, not a flaw in how it is being approached in research.
When someone develops as a new theory that fits the evidence better, it will be adopted. Existing theory is still held to because it does the best job even with these corrections, better than any of the alternatives people have come up with. The problem IS the evidence being looked at in a cold analytical light, the proponents of the alternatives refuse to do that or have done it and come up short.
The scientific establishment nurtures contrarians just fine, but they have to play by the same rules as the rest of the community when it comes to backing up their claims and fitting them to the rest of existing data, which is what the armchairs and the crackpots do not wish to do.
Slashdot Mirror
People plant there because the land is cheap and the agricultural lobby has the local government wrapped around their finger for getting special concessions. It took massive public works (public money, private benefit) projects to produce much of the arable land. Then they had to go annex a bunch of seagull poop islands to fertilize the crap (but now moist) land.
One of the great ironies.. the east coast has a good watershead and extremely fertile land, but we moved so large chunks of our agriculture to regions with crappy land.
And want to hear something frightening about that? His common sense probably let a lot of child molesters go free. Family court judges are notorious for being dismissive about abuse claims and I know a lot of a adults who still bear a grudge because a judge would not believe one of their parents was abusing them.
Sadly, your uncle is not a counter example, he is more likely an example of the problem.
Actually, people who work in domestic violence talk about that a lot. Know what happens? "oh, they must be making it up in order to get revenge on someone'
Yeah, so much better to just tell women they must be lieing and put up as many barriers to reporting as possible. Anything that might hurt men obviously takes priority over women, after all, they must have done something to deserve it, no?
Yes, it can. However, rape destroys lives too. Given how difficult it is to prosecute a case and how massively under reported it is, just how much do we need to think of the poor men when weighing things that might actually help victims? People are either forgetting (or simply do not care) that this is used to discredit rape victims at much higher rates. So all I can really read from this is 'men matter, women do not, anything that might hurt men but help women must be stopped!'
Yeah, it is much safer to just destroy the lives of victims instead.
The problem is, too many people get their idea of how accusations pan out from MRA blogs then victims networks or even actual research. If even a tiny percentage of men have their lives ruined by women with false accusations it gets blown up in the only type of case that matters, thus women are assumed to be lying sluts unless they prove otherwise over and over and over, and even then they will be treated like they were 'probably' lying for the rest of their lives because 'so many cases of this happen!'. Even worse, many police and judges buy into this image too...
The more likely case is for every 500 guilty you will sweep up a handful of innocent. While the image of the false accuser is a powerful image in the public imagination, they are pretty rare and it is much more common for a victim to be pushed into dropping things due to the shame and harassment they get in their life.
Ahm, if charges were dropped, the person would not be on the list.
This story also assumes that she was lying and he was telling the truth, have you considered that he was lying? Most victims are given a hard enough time by going forward that they drop out of cases since they have to defend themselves over and over and fucking over from people saying 'well, it is probably just a false accusation, think of the men hurt by sluts like you!'. It gets really draining and a lot of women just give up because the process of going through the trial is just not worth it to get justice.
I see far more people getting raped and not believed then I see people being falsely accused, and this is coming from someone who has had people close to me in both categories.
The vast majority of the time, accusations are turned back on the accuser. There are occasional examples of the accusation ruining the accused, but most of the time people (including officers) assume the accusation is 'probably false' and treat the victim accordingly. Get raped, and generally one will be treated like they deserved it, or are making it up, or are just having regrets, or are simply trying to 'take advantage' of some innocent man.
Ahm, have you ever talked to someone who tried to report rape to the police? It is a real toss up regarding how 'serious' they take it, with many victims finding that the treatment they get from the police makes them question if they should have reported it in the first place. Shaming is so embedded in our culture that even well meaning officers usually end up treating the victim like it was their fault.
One thing to keep in mind is that the effect you get from high profile cases and how the remaining 99.99% can be vastly different. This kind of damage only really occurs either within a community (in which case, accuser or accused, the least popular person is the one who suffers) or if there is massive public attention to a case, which might only be 1 or 2 per year in a country the size of the US. When looking at best practices, we have to examine the common cases, the places where things can do the most harm or most good, NOT the super rare edge cases that get the spotlight.
On the other hand, often being an accuser destroys lives too.
Well, they do support the OS, just not the OSS drivers. For someone who's primary concern is getting their work done on these machines the differnce is not that important. The fight for an OSS driver is mostly due to philosophical and tinkerer issues.
If all their utility does is make xorg.conf changes, that sounds like a problem with the control panel.
Hardware and firmware often has a maze of IP behind them, not all of which is in nvida's power to ignore. Third party software, logic blocks, or even tools can make open sourcing things trikcy, and clearing such releases by the legal department can take non-trivial amounts of time and effort. It costs more than nothing to do it, and they have to weigh that against the possible benefit, which in this case is pretty small.
Dark matter IS a modeling error. Every time they talk about 'dark matter' they are talking about modeling error.
Having worked in physics, I can tell you that hunting for modeling and measurement errors is a great way to get funding. Finding a specific modeling error is a HUGE career boost, and papers are written all the time exploring possible errors and how they can be (or were) tested. Same with measurement errors, there was even a story on this very site a few months back about a paper being published going over an error in measurement once new techniques were able to correct for it and the impact it had on previously published results.
But to claim they are never talk about modeling errors represents a fundamental misunderstanding of research into dark matter or even the very concept of it. The whole point is that dark matter is an unattributed correction to current models that demonstrates that they are not correct, but the exact error has not been ferreted out yet. Once it is, 'dark matter' goes away.
I do not get the impression that being allowed or not has any real impact on him threatening to sue.
Ok, put another way:
As a consumer you can control which search engine you use.
As a business owner, you can choose which engine you work through, but you either play by Google's rules OR face potentially crippling reductions in your ability to reach consumers. If a company chooses the later, they run a real risk of going out of business.
When that company goes under, consumer choice beyond search engine are decreased. Individual consumers, even if they utilize other search engines to look for less visible companies do not significantly impact this process, yet it does impact them.
Again, you are thinking like an end user. Think from the perspective of a business owner who needs to reach consumers. Anti-trust laws are written to indirectly benefit consumers, primarily focusing on how businesses interact with each other and the effect that has on the market on the whole.
There are more people in the world then consumers, 'we' are not the end all and be all of markets.
I had a similar confusion since to the best of my knowledge this was a predicted outcome of some approaches to dark matter, and that this type of behavior is exactly what some people have been looking for.
Scientists are looking into 2 and 3 just as much. 2 tends to not get much attention since that tends to be dull and very detailed work, but piece by piece possible errors have been eliminated or corrected. 3 and 1 are the same basic problem, there is an error somewhere but figuring out where has proven difficult. Several models have been proposed, but that involves either exotic matter not covered by current models or adjustment for new phenomena. Wondering why they have not been ruled out demonstrates lack of domain knowledge and awareness of what is being worked on, not a flaw in how it is being approached in research.
When someone develops as a new theory that fits the evidence better, it will be adopted. Existing theory is still held to because it does the best job even with these corrections, better than any of the alternatives people have come up with. The problem IS the evidence being looked at in a cold analytical light, the proponents of the alternatives refuse to do that or have done it and come up short.
The scientific establishment nurtures contrarians just fine, but they have to play by the same rules as the rest of the community when it comes to backing up their claims and fitting them to the rest of existing data, which is what the armchairs and the crackpots do not wish to do.