Well, gee Sherlock, did you consider that maybe the problems with it are real and that once they know about the risk it creates for you they might become responsible? It doesn't matter that you want to buy it, they're responsible if they sell a harmful product after they know it is harmful. You might want to hand them a few dollars today, and next year your lawyer might be asking them for a few million.
Panspermia has basically nothing to do with "evolution" in the Darwinist sense, all of that is the same. It only differs on the question of what got it started. Darwin didn't insist on a certain mechanism for Earth life to start, his argument is that all Earth life could evolve from a primordial form; panspermia is simply an offered primordial mechanism! Darwin talked about believing in "spontaneous generation" but also that he understood science to be not far advanced enough to handle the question. There is no reason at all to believe that panspermia is inconsistent with his views.
But the huge, gaping, unresolvable problem with the claim that panspermia is anti-Darwinist is that panspermia still supposes the exact same spontaneous generation as Darwin was considering, it simply moves it back to an earlier time in a different geographical place.
The only "magic" is your magical thinking that the little guy must somehow always have a military solution available. That is not actually the accurate history of asymmetrical warfare. The reason that asymmetrical warfare works at all for the little guy in modern conflicts is that the authority they are fighting has a limited budget, political restrictions on how they fight, and a duty to protect civilians and "maintain order in the streets." If a bubble city is fighting against your illegal settlement, they have no obligation to create order on those secret streets. They will likely have no restriction on bombing your settlement.
There are only really two types of effective asymmetric warfare already, because of technology; where the more powerful group has political control but is also poor, then attacking physical infrastructure can still be effective if your group has a large population of potential fighters. Otherwise, the only thing that works at all is terrorism. And a bubble city doesn't worry a lot about terrorism; terrorism is effective only because of a duty for the powerful to protect the commoners. But a bubble city only has a duty to its own residents, and you don't even have access. You can't just attack their water source, it is well protected by drones. You would not have access to anything you could terrorize.
All the things that you can do to fight them would have to be done before they own everything. Your magical thinking is similar to thinking that chimps will be able to attack humans if we take away too much of their forest. It is just absurd. Humans who grow up in the wilderness outside a bubble city will not likely even maintain literacy, much less be able to find a game-changing weakness in the highly-engineered defenses. A great victory would be something like, after 100 years and 100,000 fighters lost, you finally killed 1 Lawful Citizen. And then your whole tribe is rounded up and executed. A few survivors celebrate Victory Day for 5 generations, but nobody knows what they're celebrating because telling the details didn't make for a good party.
You're not allowed to mine arsenic and boron, because somebody in the bubble city on the horizon owns all the land.
If you try to build a factory, drones will bomb it.
It is not at all obvious that the problems lead to self-correction, or that the poor can simply wait for the manna to trickle down. What if somebody programs a robot to receive a paycheck and spend it? Everything can be automated, including demand, at least until the Masters have agreed on a new economic system that doesn't even require that shortcut.
Real solutions have to work now, and have to keep working as we transition into an economy where productivity is cheap and most scarcity is artificial. Otherwise you just get bubble cities, and almost everything outside it is a private park.
Interesting theory, however if they had been given a fine people would make the same complaint; a fine doesn't change their behavior, they should have been subjected to a consent decree. If they get a consent decree, the same people complain that without a fine there must not have been a punishment.
For your comment to have value, you have to actually say words that support your claim that is less than a slap on the wrist. What good is a bare conclusion, with no reasons or analysis?
Also, a EULA it is a valid notice of conditions or terms that might affect a contract, but it is usually not an enforceable contract other than as relates directly to the issue of copyright, which is the license potentially being granted. Though, if it grants no rights then it isn't offering any consideration, and doesn't have any claim to even being a contract. But the part you really aren't understanding is what "affirmative consent" means. It means they have to ask that part separately and clearly, they can't bundle it or hide it inside another agreement.
OTOH, having a standardized chipset and API for non-network vehicle-to-vehicle communication could really help prevent hacks by preventing each company from implementing their own version with their own cost savings.
You might be surprised at the number of additional juices with interesting chemical properties that can be squeezed from a lemon with additional force.
You can't squeeze blood from a stone, but rocks are like sponges and you can squeeze a lot of water out of them.
I have a fancy juicer and I mostly use it for vegetables. Removing the insoluble fiber from vegetables is useful. But whole fruits are way better than juices.
What I'd really like to see is a study that compared filtered "apple juice" to traditional "apple cider" that has minimal filtering. We know whole apples reduces health risks, if the cider increases risks then the difference is probably down to the fiber.
Odd list of citations, since 3 of them are re-tellings of the same study which contradicts other past studies in some regards, 1 of them isn't even a study it is just a link about promoting a message of reduced fruit juice consumption, and the other is a study that says if you give fat kids fruit juice they get fatter, and if you give them whole fruit they lose weight. That actually just tells you that those kids are eating too many total calories and the fruit juice had a lot of calories; the rest of their diet was unchanged, after all. It tells you nothing about what happens if you eat the same amount of calories, but some of them were from fruit juice vs something else.
You make it sound like you found 5 studies, but you found 1 study and it relies on self-reporting and it says in the conclusions that participants might have reported fruit "punch" as fruit juice. Regionally in the US "fruit juice" is actually the colloquial name for it even when it is only 5% juice. It was a pretty good study, but other people recalculating the results to generate additional charts is not the same thing as having additional studies that verify the results.
Well, the "diabetes juice" link they ran on slashdot wasn't juice it was "juice cocktail" which is just non-carbonated soda.
Another popular link by the slashdot anti-juice crowd is the one that shows that processed fructose is even worse than processed sucrose. No doubt true, but the results don't seem to hold for actual juice.
I went the, "I'll just freelance for low wages and scrape by until it gets better" route, and it wasn't long before I was bidding below minimum wage and losing out because my prices were too high. Then I switched to a job as a tree trimmer, which didn't pay much but at least I got to spend time outside. And I learned a lot about tools, which has really come in handy in my tech work and opened a lot of new horizons for me.
The most important thing about those "off" years isn't what you did, it is what your attitude is. If you can see the positive things in it, if you can talk about how you learned new skills and gained a broader perspective, and found value in that other work you did, then an employer looks at it as a positive.
If instead (like some other guy somewhere above) you have a sob story about how you were "forced" to take on grunt work that nobody of your obviously superior status should have to do, then that is going to be a major red flag that you're horrible to work with and have a poor work ethic. I mean, the whole basis of "having a job," of being an employee, is that you're doing a task your employer needs done. It has nothing to do with the worker being superior in any way. So if the worker is too full of himself, surely he was a poor work ethic and it will show in lots of other ways.
Almost nothing that a programmer is asked to do will be anything new, that remains true if you're working a product that is different than anything made in the past! Just like, a carpenter isn't doing anything new, even if building a new style of building. If somebody actually does something new, for better or worse, it is going to be the stakeholder that controls the money that is the cause of the new thing happening. And if you have a software engineering degree, that just means that you're a programmer who is expected to calculate efficiency in advance, it doesn't change what your role is in the process of deciding that a thing will be built, and then building it.
If you're too important to be a programmer, you better be a business owner and just forget about being an employee. And if you want to be an employee, the best way to succeed is to understand why jobs exist, and that having a good attitude + meeting the minimum technical requirements is way way better for an employee than having a minimally defensible attitude + exceeding the technical requirements.
And for the neckbeards who consider acceptable workplace language to be stifling and somehow "political," (as in the phrase PC) they should probably just accept that getting fired every 7 years is cycle of Nature.
No, "computer science" means you work for a University. "Programming" means you work for some sort of company that does work.
That is the full entire extent of the difference between the words. Everything else about them is exactly the same. And if you disagree, you're either an idiot or a linguist, and linguists are in a different field and so should pipe down and wait their turn.
coding... tech support.. oil changes on cars all day.
One of these three things is not like the other two. You're not sure which, but I'll bet most slashdot readers can spot the one that is different from the other two.
You seem really obsessed with name recognition and authoritative titles.
Programming is just programming, it is a loose word and so should be used loosely. Your snobbery around it just tells me that you're probably impossible to work with; you're willing to be technically incorrect where the only thing you even get out of it is standing on the side of the pedanticism you declared superior!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, gee Sherlock, did you consider that maybe the problems with it are real and that once they know about the risk it creates for you they might become responsible? It doesn't matter that you want to buy it, they're responsible if they sell a harmful product after they know it is harmful. You might want to hand them a few dollars today, and next year your lawyer might be asking them for a few million.
Panspermia has basically nothing to do with "evolution" in the Darwinist sense, all of that is the same. It only differs on the question of what got it started. Darwin didn't insist on a certain mechanism for Earth life to start, his argument is that all Earth life could evolve from a primordial form; panspermia is simply an offered primordial mechanism! Darwin talked about believing in "spontaneous generation" but also that he understood science to be not far advanced enough to handle the question. There is no reason at all to believe that panspermia is inconsistent with his views.
But the huge, gaping, unresolvable problem with the claim that panspermia is anti-Darwinist is that panspermia still supposes the exact same spontaneous generation as Darwin was considering, it simply moves it back to an earlier time in a different geographical place.
The only "magic" is your magical thinking that the little guy must somehow always have a military solution available. That is not actually the accurate history of asymmetrical warfare. The reason that asymmetrical warfare works at all for the little guy in modern conflicts is that the authority they are fighting has a limited budget, political restrictions on how they fight, and a duty to protect civilians and "maintain order in the streets." If a bubble city is fighting against your illegal settlement, they have no obligation to create order on those secret streets. They will likely have no restriction on bombing your settlement.
There are only really two types of effective asymmetric warfare already, because of technology; where the more powerful group has political control but is also poor, then attacking physical infrastructure can still be effective if your group has a large population of potential fighters. Otherwise, the only thing that works at all is terrorism. And a bubble city doesn't worry a lot about terrorism; terrorism is effective only because of a duty for the powerful to protect the commoners. But a bubble city only has a duty to its own residents, and you don't even have access. You can't just attack their water source, it is well protected by drones. You would not have access to anything you could terrorize.
All the things that you can do to fight them would have to be done before they own everything. Your magical thinking is similar to thinking that chimps will be able to attack humans if we take away too much of their forest. It is just absurd. Humans who grow up in the wilderness outside a bubble city will not likely even maintain literacy, much less be able to find a game-changing weakness in the highly-engineered defenses. A great victory would be something like, after 100 years and 100,000 fighters lost, you finally killed 1 Lawful Citizen. And then your whole tribe is rounded up and executed. A few survivors celebrate Victory Day for 5 generations, but nobody knows what they're celebrating because telling the details didn't make for a good party.
You're not allowed to mine arsenic and boron, because somebody in the bubble city on the horizon owns all the land.
If you try to build a factory, drones will bomb it.
It is not at all obvious that the problems lead to self-correction, or that the poor can simply wait for the manna to trickle down. What if somebody programs a robot to receive a paycheck and spend it? Everything can be automated, including demand, at least until the Masters have agreed on a new economic system that doesn't even require that shortcut.
Real solutions have to work now, and have to keep working as we transition into an economy where productivity is cheap and most scarcity is artificial. Otherwise you just get bubble cities, and almost everything outside it is a private park.
Interesting theory, however if they had been given a fine people would make the same complaint; a fine doesn't change their behavior, they should have been subjected to a consent decree. If they get a consent decree, the same people complain that without a fine there must not have been a punishment.
For your comment to have value, you have to actually say words that support your claim that is less than a slap on the wrist. What good is a bare conclusion, with no reasons or analysis?
Also, a EULA it is a valid notice of conditions or terms that might affect a contract, but it is usually not an enforceable contract other than as relates directly to the issue of copyright, which is the license potentially being granted. Though, if it grants no rights then it isn't offering any consideration, and doesn't have any claim to even being a contract. But the part you really aren't understanding is what "affirmative consent" means. It means they have to ask that part separately and clearly, they can't bundle it or hide it inside another agreement.
With these kind of verdicts
If you can't tell what a verdict is, how can you hope to have any idea what the implications are or are not?
Why is the #1 search engine with the #1 web browser also allowed to own a leading ad company? Break them up so they can't collude.
Because freedom. You don't have to get permission from the government just to open a business, which is apparently what you're suggesting.
That's impossible, this is slashdot, everybody has Data A Live running in a loop in the "living-room" half of the basement.
No deto, no social life. You can't take that away from them. Let them have their deto.
The shark was obliterated in testing.
This is a death ray pretending to be a laser, not a real laser.
Yes, but this would actually make it possible for computers to avoid the accident. All the finger does is admit guilt.
OTOH, having a standardized chipset and API for non-network vehicle-to-vehicle communication could really help prevent hacks by preventing each company from implementing their own version with their own cost savings.
Herbie
You might be surprised at the number of additional juices with interesting chemical properties that can be squeezed from a lemon with additional force.
You can't squeeze blood from a stone, but rocks are like sponges and you can squeeze a lot of water out of them.
I have a fancy juicer and I mostly use it for vegetables. Removing the insoluble fiber from vegetables is useful. But whole fruits are way better than juices.
What I'd really like to see is a study that compared filtered "apple juice" to traditional "apple cider" that has minimal filtering. We know whole apples reduces health risks, if the cider increases risks then the difference is probably down to the fiber.
The hardware is so awesome, this is great news! I'm hoping to pick some up super-cheap and build a giant robot chef out of them!
Because I prefer a higher level of internal consistency than that.
Odd list of citations, since 3 of them are re-tellings of the same study which contradicts other past studies in some regards, 1 of them isn't even a study it is just a link about promoting a message of reduced fruit juice consumption, and the other is a study that says if you give fat kids fruit juice they get fatter, and if you give them whole fruit they lose weight. That actually just tells you that those kids are eating too many total calories and the fruit juice had a lot of calories; the rest of their diet was unchanged, after all. It tells you nothing about what happens if you eat the same amount of calories, but some of them were from fruit juice vs something else.
You make it sound like you found 5 studies, but you found 1 study and it relies on self-reporting and it says in the conclusions that participants might have reported fruit "punch" as fruit juice. Regionally in the US "fruit juice" is actually the colloquial name for it even when it is only 5% juice. It was a pretty good study, but other people recalculating the results to generate additional charts is not the same thing as having additional studies that verify the results.
Well, the "diabetes juice" link they ran on slashdot wasn't juice it was "juice cocktail" which is just non-carbonated soda.
Another popular link by the slashdot anti-juice crowd is the one that shows that processed fructose is even worse than processed sucrose. No doubt true, but the results don't seem to hold for actual juice.
If you check his older videos you'll realize he gets more Canuckistani by the year.
It is the Canadian version of being Oirish.
He's basically a Canadian minstrel show at this point.
If you went and said something other than what you meant, don't go and blame it on grammar.
And in the UK, a sweet-ass ride and sweet ass-ride are indeed often the same thing. But that is also all merely a matter of style.
No, but they might want to learn Ruby just in case.
Protip: if your degree took more than 2 years to achieve, it was not job training and you were not going to school for a specific job.
Also, if a 2 year degree has the word "associate" in it, it did not train you for any job.
I too had a huge hiccup at the .com bust.
I went the, "I'll just freelance for low wages and scrape by until it gets better" route, and it wasn't long before I was bidding below minimum wage and losing out because my prices were too high. Then I switched to a job as a tree trimmer, which didn't pay much but at least I got to spend time outside. And I learned a lot about tools, which has really come in handy in my tech work and opened a lot of new horizons for me.
The most important thing about those "off" years isn't what you did, it is what your attitude is. If you can see the positive things in it, if you can talk about how you learned new skills and gained a broader perspective, and found value in that other work you did, then an employer looks at it as a positive.
If instead (like some other guy somewhere above) you have a sob story about how you were "forced" to take on grunt work that nobody of your obviously superior status should have to do, then that is going to be a major red flag that you're horrible to work with and have a poor work ethic. I mean, the whole basis of "having a job," of being an employee, is that you're doing a task your employer needs done. It has nothing to do with the worker being superior in any way. So if the worker is too full of himself, surely he was a poor work ethic and it will show in lots of other ways.
Almost nothing that a programmer is asked to do will be anything new, that remains true if you're working a product that is different than anything made in the past! Just like, a carpenter isn't doing anything new, even if building a new style of building. If somebody actually does something new, for better or worse, it is going to be the stakeholder that controls the money that is the cause of the new thing happening. And if you have a software engineering degree, that just means that you're a programmer who is expected to calculate efficiency in advance, it doesn't change what your role is in the process of deciding that a thing will be built, and then building it.
If you're too important to be a programmer, you better be a business owner and just forget about being an employee. And if you want to be an employee, the best way to succeed is to understand why jobs exist, and that having a good attitude + meeting the minimum technical requirements is way way better for an employee than having a minimally defensible attitude + exceeding the technical requirements.
And for the neckbeards who consider acceptable workplace language to be stifling and somehow "political," (as in the phrase PC) they should probably just accept that getting fired every 7 years is cycle of Nature.
No, "computer science" means you work for a University.
"Programming" means you work for some sort of company that does work.
That is the full entire extent of the difference between the words. Everything else about them is exactly the same. And if you disagree, you're either an idiot or a linguist, and linguists are in a different field and so should pipe down and wait their turn.
coding ... tech support.. oil changes on cars all day.
One of these three things is not like the other two. You're not sure which, but I'll bet most slashdot readers can spot the one that is different from the other two.
You seem really obsessed with name recognition and authoritative titles.
Programming is just programming, it is a loose word and so should be used loosely. Your snobbery around it just tells me that you're probably impossible to work with; you're willing to be technically incorrect where the only thing you even get out of it is standing on the side of the pedanticism you declared superior!
See also: http://programming-motherfucke...