Why flat? It doesn't matter: it's underwear. If somebody complains your underwear is wrinkled, either you are wearing it wrong (Superman style?), or need new friends.
Both parties have been lax on enforcing anti-trust. Remember, "anti-trust" is regulation of business, and GOP traditionally does not want regulation of business.
I know some conservatives who believe the market eventually "solves" monopolies on its own such that anti-trust enforcement allegedly isn't needed. For example, IBM grew too comfortable such that microcomputers eventually ate its lunch. While possibly, true, it also took a couple of decades to play out. Plus, IBM was under anti-trust investigation at the time, which may have pressured it to cheat less on PC's.
But maybe that 5% care a lot while the other 95% don't care enough to counter the sales-related issues of that 5%. It's not just the number of people, but also HOW much they care about an issue. Hispanics may also have a related opinion.
[a newspaper] *used* to include the race of a suspect [but changed]
It's possibly just business: many of customers are probably minorities who may feel that doing such just increases racism or hatred against their group.
It's not too different from Fox News covering or emphasizing stories of the gov't screwing up and de-emphasizing stories of the private sector screwing up.
It's more profitable to tell your customers what they want to hear and suppress what they don't want to hear.
Obama used to stand against the abuses of the Patriot Act and mass surveillance and then...sold out
Maybe he's seen classified stuff that he's not allowed to tell us, and that's why he changed his mind.
He changed his mind on stopping Assad over time. Some insiders say he eventually came realized it was not likely to make a real difference, merely exchange one jackass ruler(s) for another in that area.
No, the election was won or lost because someone didn't realize that this is a democratic "Republic"
No, it's because T lied better. Automation is much bigger threat to blue-collar jobs than outsiders. H's re-training plans were thus a more logical solution to job loss in middle America. T simply sold the wrong solution better, leveraging the primitive emotion of xenophobia.
The liberals making these censorship demands see themselves as good people and believe that censorship is necessary for the greater good... [There] are a lot of parallels between what the Chinese government is doing and what liberals are doing
Hold on a sec. There is a big difference between suggesting or pressuring private news organizations from spreading disinformation or sloppy information, AND having the gov't do it or enforce it.
I don't know any prominent progressive politician suggesting gov't censorship of fake news. And even if 1 or 2 did, that doesn't make it representative of all progressives any more than Donald's actual suggestion for expanding libel laws makes that representative of all Republicans or conservatives.
Now maybe you are talking about other countries where censorship of so-called "hate speech" is indeed practiced by their gov't. They lived through a horrible war triggered by hate speech. It's hard to judge a decision without walking through war in their shoes.
Hate-speech is usually counter-productive anyhow. General claims that "Group X is lazy and evil" have never done any good that I know of. Every group is already aware of the negative stereotypes against them: repeating them over and over never "fixed" them, and just creates more tension.
To take some example stereotypes, will repeatedly telling whites that they "can't jump, don't have rhythm, and are greedy" CAUSE them to gain jumping, rhythm, and stop being greedy? If so, how many repetitions does it take? 100? 500? Where's the science on the number?
Instead, say, "I don't like it when people do Y" rather than "Group X should stop doing Y, they are bad people." The first format conveys mostly the same info without having to bad-mouth a group. It's a more diplomatic and useful way to criticize.
Again, I'm not for banning such group-wide accusations, only saying nothing of worth is lost by doing it, and there are good alternatives.
Obama shows once again how he is a global citizen by complaining about Fake News just like China.
Everyone except trolls complain about it. The difference is in what one proposes to do about it. Obama does not propose gov't censoring, unlike the Chinese.
Thank you Obama, if only you could save us from Trump.
Nope, it looks like we gotta ride this one out. Let's just hope Donald not as distract-able, child-like, and A.D.D.-ish as he seemed during the campaign.
[Sig] Enlightened SJW: Trump is racist against Mexico which is why I'm moving from L.A. to Vancouver to show solidarity!
I don't get it. Somebody care to explain this? Did those wanting to move to Canada pledge to stay for battle or something? If so, please link it.
In fact, they do have to make sense. Making sense is what differentiates science (common sense, logic, properly-understood phenomena, etc.) and other "fields" like magic, blind-trust-based ideas, luck, I-repeat-what-cannot-understand-because-it-sounds-cool or similar.
The vast majority of human technology came about by experimenting, not formal models. Formal models are a nice bonus, but not necessary for making better tools.
If it proves itself in space, I'm sure a lot more attention will be given to the physics behind it.
What's with the bad mods? I did NOT mean to kill or injure the eagles, just scare them enough to end the attack. It's comparable to an electric fence for cattle: it doesn't kill the cattle, just frightens them.
as if no one had learned anything from the past revolutions and evolutions in the industry in general.
An historical pattern is no guarantee of continuation of that pattern. It's not a hard-wired Law of the Universe.
In the past, we could see the new jobs coming to replace the old ones fairly quickly. The replacements are much harder to find this time, at least in quantity. Most "mature" industrialized nations are facing the same problem.
Maybe sufficient job replacement would work IF our society knew how to adjust to it properly.
For example, I have a theory that if we use the Helicopter Money concept, we may be able to boost sluggish economies without risk of run-away inflation because automation can absorb the increase: GDP can grow because machines can make more. If GDP grows with the money supply increase, you don't get excess inflation.
But, it's politically risky to try such: an administration would be accused of "printing money to hide debt problems" and other things, and condemned if the experiment failed.
Thus, the newer automation may not inherently lead to net job loss, but it will in practice if society doesn't know how to adjust economic and civil systems to take advantage of it.
All upscaling algorithms are making up data based on assumptions on what "typical" hi-res images should look like given their low-res counterparts. That doesn't mean they are lying or misrepresenting.
It's essentially using AI and statistics to guess. While not "lying or misrepresenting", it should be considered just that: a guess.
If anyone is convicted based on such AI guesses, they should be let out of jail.
If bipolar transistors are faster than IC (MOS) transistors, then why don't they try to make bipolar chips now, being manufacturing either may have improved, or R&D goes further since chips are big biz? Or, do other factors matter more?
But orgs don't want the extra expense of staffing and training between multiple brands, and migrating back and forth between them as needs change, such as a small database growing large and vice versa. One-stop-shopping simplifies all this.
I'd suggest picking no more than two brands for an org: one high-end and one low-end. You'd probably want the option of ACID for both, which makes no-sql solutions a problem.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, most people were rural. Therefore, based on what you said (and what I generally agree with), the 2nd may be obsolete for non-rural.
A compromise could be to let the states manage gun laws, BUT it's too easy to export guns across state borders, as Chicago found out. State X's decisions affect State Y's. Thus, we have a sticky conflict.
The welfare issue is a little bit easier push to the states, but it can result in the poorest and sickest flooding into states with the most generous benefits. Therefore, another sticky conflict.
In in the US, we borrowed the French terms and somewhat redefined them for our own use. Using urban/rural by itself would likely confuse readers because it's not common, and they make take them literally, thinking one is talking about physical locations. Use what you want, I elect not to.
'Left' and 'Right' are useless terms, don't use them.
To communicate ideas we need something that is understood by both the speaker and the listener. There are not any concise decent alternatives yet.
But there is a strong pattern in the US of "rural" culture versus "urban" culture, and this is often what right versus left is about. Maybe "centrist" would then be between these, such as suburbia.
In general, these are differences in assumptions or behaviors between them.
Urban (left): - Multiculturalism is embraced and celebrated - Mixed economic system (market & socialism) - All religions treated equally - Variety is good - Laws should focus on the practical over morality (because diff religions have diff morality concepts) - Profiling is offensive - Government to help the poor and sick - Bigger law enforcement instead of reliance on personal guns for protection - Climate change is a real problem - Respect for formal education and subject experts
Rural (right): - Laws and culture guided by religion, generally Evangelical - Protestant European culture is superior - Profiling is acceptable - Capitalism is far superior to socialism in almost all cases (small gov't) - Churches and donations are to take care of poor and sick, not gov't - Large military - Gun for DIY law enforcement instead of lots of cops - Climate change is a gov't influenced hoax to grow gov't control - Suspicion of subject experts, favoring alleged common sense and "gut feelings", often guided by prayer
Slashdot Mirror
Why flat? It doesn't matter: it's underwear. If somebody complains your underwear is wrinkled, either you are wearing it wrong (Superman style?), or need new friends.
Both parties have been lax on enforcing anti-trust. Remember, "anti-trust" is regulation of business, and GOP traditionally does not want regulation of business.
I know some conservatives who believe the market eventually "solves" monopolies on its own such that anti-trust enforcement allegedly isn't needed. For example, IBM grew too comfortable such that microcomputers eventually ate its lunch. While possibly, true, it also took a couple of decades to play out. Plus, IBM was under anti-trust investigation at the time, which may have pressured it to cheat less on PC's.
But maybe that 5% care a lot while the other 95% don't care enough to counter the sales-related issues of that 5%. It's not just the number of people, but also HOW much they care about an issue. Hispanics may also have a related opinion.
It's possibly just business: many of customers are probably minorities who may feel that doing such just increases racism or hatred against their group.
It's not too different from Fox News covering or emphasizing stories of the gov't screwing up and de-emphasizing stories of the private sector screwing up.
It's more profitable to tell your customers what they want to hear and suppress what they don't want to hear.
Maybe he's seen classified stuff that he's not allowed to tell us, and that's why he changed his mind.
He changed his mind on stopping Assad over time. Some insiders say he eventually came realized it was not likely to make a real difference, merely exchange one jackass ruler(s) for another in that area.
Smart people adjust based on experience.
That the Pope endorsed Donald is a common one.
No, it's because T lied better. Automation is much bigger threat to blue-collar jobs than outsiders. H's re-training plans were thus a more logical solution to job loss in middle America. T simply sold the wrong solution better, leveraging the primitive emotion of xenophobia.
Logic Lost and is why us nerds should be pissed.
Gov't censorship? Reference/quote please.
Hold on a sec. There is a big difference between suggesting or pressuring private news organizations from spreading disinformation or sloppy information, AND having the gov't do it or enforce it.
I don't know any prominent progressive politician suggesting gov't censorship of fake news. And even if 1 or 2 did, that doesn't make it representative of all progressives any more than Donald's actual suggestion for expanding libel laws makes that representative of all Republicans or conservatives.
Now maybe you are talking about other countries where censorship of so-called "hate speech" is indeed practiced by their gov't. They lived through a horrible war triggered by hate speech. It's hard to judge a decision without walking through war in their shoes.
Hate-speech is usually counter-productive anyhow. General claims that "Group X is lazy and evil" have never done any good that I know of. Every group is already aware of the negative stereotypes against them: repeating them over and over never "fixed" them, and just creates more tension.
To take some example stereotypes, will repeatedly telling whites that they "can't jump, don't have rhythm, and are greedy" CAUSE them to gain jumping, rhythm, and stop being greedy? If so, how many repetitions does it take? 100? 500? Where's the science on the number?
Instead, say, "I don't like it when people do Y" rather than "Group X should stop doing Y, they are bad people." The first format conveys mostly the same info without having to bad-mouth a group. It's a more diplomatic and useful way to criticize.
Again, I'm not for banning such group-wide accusations, only saying nothing of worth is lost by doing it, and there are good alternatives.
Everyone except trolls complain about it. The difference is in what one proposes to do about it. Obama does not propose gov't censoring, unlike the Chinese.
Nope, it looks like we gotta ride this one out. Let's just hope Donald not as distract-able, child-like, and A.D.D.-ish as he seemed during the campaign.
I don't get it. Somebody care to explain this? Did those wanting to move to Canada pledge to stay for battle or something? If so, please link it.
The vast majority of human technology came about by experimenting, not formal models. Formal models are a nice bonus, but not necessary for making better tools.
If it proves itself in space, I'm sure a lot more attention will be given to the physics behind it.
What's with the bad mods? I did NOT mean to kill or injure the eagles, just scare them enough to end the attack. It's comparable to an electric fence for cattle: it doesn't kill the cattle, just frightens them.
An historical pattern is no guarantee of continuation of that pattern. It's not a hard-wired Law of the Universe.
In the past, we could see the new jobs coming to replace the old ones fairly quickly. The replacements are much harder to find this time, at least in quantity. Most "mature" industrialized nations are facing the same problem.
Maybe sufficient job replacement would work IF our society knew how to adjust to it properly.
For example, I have a theory that if we use the Helicopter Money concept, we may be able to boost sluggish economies without risk of run-away inflation because automation can absorb the increase: GDP can grow because machines can make more. If GDP grows with the money supply increase, you don't get excess inflation.
But, it's politically risky to try such: an administration would be accused of "printing money to hide debt problems" and other things, and condemned if the experiment failed.
Thus, the newer automation may not inherently lead to net job loss, but it will in practice if society doesn't know how to adjust economic and civil systems to take advantage of it.
Is this a terminology question or an existing product question? I didn't name the products.
Maybe I haven't been keeping up, but they lose lots of their original advantages by doing such.
"Oh shit, surgery marks, they are FAKE, there goes my woody."
It's essentially using AI and statistics to guess. While not "lying or misrepresenting", it should be considered just that: a guess.
If anyone is convicted based on such AI guesses, they should be let out of jail.
Can they put protruding electrodes on them to zap eagles?
If bipolar transistors are faster than IC (MOS) transistors, then why don't they try to make bipolar chips now, being manufacturing either may have improved, or R&D goes further since chips are big biz? Or, do other factors matter more?
But orgs don't want the extra expense of staffing and training between multiple brands, and migrating back and forth between them as needs change, such as a small database growing large and vice versa. One-stop-shopping simplifies all this.
I'd suggest picking no more than two brands for an org: one high-end and one low-end. You'd probably want the option of ACID for both, which makes no-sql solutions a problem.
-MS
iNfect
When the 2nd Amendment was written, most people were rural. Therefore, based on what you said (and what I generally agree with), the 2nd may be obsolete for non-rural.
A compromise could be to let the states manage gun laws, BUT it's too easy to export guns across state borders, as Chicago found out. State X's decisions affect State Y's. Thus, we have a sticky conflict.
The welfare issue is a little bit easier push to the states, but it can result in the poorest and sickest flooding into states with the most generous benefits. Therefore, another sticky conflict.
In in the US, we borrowed the French terms and somewhat redefined them for our own use. Using urban/rural by itself would likely confuse readers because it's not common, and they make take them literally, thinking one is talking about physical locations. Use what you want, I elect not to.
To communicate ideas we need something that is understood by both the speaker and the listener. There are not any concise decent alternatives yet.
But there is a strong pattern in the US of "rural" culture versus "urban" culture, and this is often what right versus left is about. Maybe "centrist" would then be between these, such as suburbia.
In general, these are differences in assumptions or behaviors between them.
Urban (left):
- Multiculturalism is embraced and celebrated
- Mixed economic system (market & socialism)
- All religions treated equally
- Variety is good
- Laws should focus on the practical over morality (because diff religions have diff morality concepts)
- Profiling is offensive
- Government to help the poor and sick
- Bigger law enforcement instead of reliance on personal guns for protection
- Climate change is a real problem
- Respect for formal education and subject experts
Rural (right):
- Laws and culture guided by religion, generally Evangelical
- Protestant European culture is superior
- Profiling is acceptable
- Capitalism is far superior to socialism in almost all cases (small gov't)
- Churches and donations are to take care of poor and sick, not gov't
- Large military
- Gun for DIY law enforcement instead of lots of cops
- Climate change is a gov't influenced hoax to grow gov't control
- Suspicion of subject experts, favoring alleged common sense and "gut feelings", often guided by prayer