Handwaving to get rid of numbers you don't like doesn't make you "numerate." It actually shows a lack of understanding even that numbers have identity. I don't think you could even have a more lacking philosophical understanding of numbers than that. Even a person who never heard of numbers is ahead of you; they don't know they exist, but they also haven't denied their existence.
If I'm talking about a specific woman, she might not want to be called [whatever polite women in my location prefer to be called]. So if I'm going to address her gender, (probably a bad idea) then I would need to know her own personal feelings on the different words. If instead I didn't want to get personal at all, but needed to have a technical discussion that involved differences between men and women, I might indeed seek the safety of the word "female." There might also be both adults and children in the group, and I don't want to even say the word "girls" unless my wife is participating in the activity. For real reasons, both good and bad but all real and based on experience.
Don't just assume that people can tell the difference between an inclusive and exclusive statement just because they come to slashdot and self-associate as a "nerd."
Then why do "Black Lives Matter" supporters respond with NO!!! when confronted with the statement "All Lives Matter"?
Because they're making an inclusive statement, and you're responding by telling them it isn't true.
Let me translate it for you:
Blorg lives matter. Therefore, Blarg lives do not matter: T/F
Does that clear it up, or are you not good at these types of test? I'll try it with Bob and Amy.
Amy says, "My life matters." Bob says, "No, all lives matter." Bob has told Amy that her life doesn't matter: T/F
See, Bob says both things. Where he's purporting to correct her, he's literally saying her life doesn't matter. Then he contradicts himself, sortof, by saying all lives matter. But it is the part where he's implying she is incorrect that is literally saying her life doesn't matter. Notice that when Amy says, "My life matters" that is an inclusive statement. She's saying that her life is included in the set of things that matter. Bob is telling her no, it isn't.
There also might be some other more subtle things going on with the language coding, but it isn't really worth getting into the dog whistles; most people who can hear them will pretend they can't anyways, so it is an impossible conversation.
5% > 0, so I'm not sure why assholes think that means there isn't a problem.
OTOH, I'm also not sure why it says $.72 instead of $.95
I don't think slashdot editors are clueful enough to take on this sort of topic. Trolling for gamegate might get some clicks, but I doubt it increases it over the long run. Maybe just avoid these issues, because your readers aren't mature enough for the topic, and your editors aren't mature enough to select reasonable stories?
Well gosh, you could just lift a weight up with an electric motor and store electricity that way. Let it drop and generate your power. See, the thing you missed was, when somebody else said something kinda like what you said, you know, the person whose idea you're copying... they were probably talking about price. But see, if the thought experiment is that you have 10x the total power, well cost doesn't matter in the same way. Now, even at 15% storage efficiency using something like rocks, it works out.
Storing electricity isn't hard.
Learn how to think for yourself, then you'll understand which math to use. Don't worry about the physics, you're not even up to the use case.
That's an exceptionally ignorant statement, one that would be disproven by the facts if you should choose to go and check on them.
Just incredible derpiness there. You should be ashamed to point at data without pointing at data. You're wrong... look it up before you argue! You know as well as I do that I've read the numbers, and you haven't.
You clearly don't even follow the story over time. The articles come up every year, and every year you wave your hands and pretend they say whatever you were told by your TEEVEE to believe. Maybe it is worth actually reading the stories and finding out what they really say?
Or at least accept that you didn't even check and have no idea what the state of sea ice is.
Newsflash, you don't have to live in a cave to not watch TV advertising. Wow, talk about "living in a cave." You think everybody does things the same as you!
5% of American households don't even have a TV; up from 1% 10 years ago. Of those who have a TV, many only watch public television, or only watch during 1 sport season.
Many more use time-shifting devices that automatically skip ads.
I've certainly never seen the ad. And I don't live in a cave; only rich people can afford properties with caves. Good luck finding a cave to live in for less than seven figures.
They can't exactly delete it before they get in trouble for having it unless they get the others who have it to delete it also.;) Just my one conspiracy angle on this.
If they figured out that being "liberal" or supporting Free Software is just political speech that they should ignore, that would help them pare it down a little.:)
Tracking the Linux Journal readers alone probably costs them a lot of storage and search noise.
When I wanted "my own" bigmath library, I just took one of IBM's and wrote my own wrappers for it. I didn't want to re-invent the bugs, but I certainly wanted to be in full control of any applied code changes, and the wrapper semantics, etc.
The problem with "waterfall" being seen as a bad word is that a lot of people are wandering week to week without a master plan, without longterm planning that takes responsibility for a properly layered architecture. Instead, they just mash together plugins and libraries with different conventions, assumptions, and semantics. It might indeed make it easier to work with difficult website clients who want to fiddle-faddle the requirements every week, but even there when you push that crap into your underlying support layers you're just burying mines and often not even mapping them.
Don't reinvent the wheel; don't re-implement basic algorithms. However, always check the gearing for a new vehicle, don't just re-use any older gear that will fit. And if the wheel needs an adapter plate, at least consider building a revised wheel instead.
It amazes me how many people want to both use external resources in their project, and then also don't want any responsibility for managing those externalities. In this case, they were just blindly trusting where there was no system to technologically preserve trust. It was just a hope and a prayer.
This is why distros do their own package management, and don't let upstream devs delete packages directly from repos. This was already a known risk. The question now is, will people who made this mistake admit it and change, or just call names and blame others and remain exposed in the future?
Get ready, dudebro, you're gonna love this: Ice melts and freezes with the seasons, and they're going to still be talking about record melting every year. And since you don't care and didn't read it, you didn't know that. Oops, they never said it wasn't going to freeze in the winter, they said the annual ice extent will shrink every year. Notice the difference? No, I didn't think you would.
Nonsense, total nonsense. The Court wasn't on the edge on this, and has never gone back and forth.
You have to actually learn about the subject in order to have relevant comments. It turns out there is more to it than just waiving your hands and saying "Roe vs Wade."
And yes, in this case the ruling prevents you from challenging an arbitration agreement in court. You're going to have to find some other way to attack the contract if you want to go to court; arbitration agreements that say you can't sue; now you can't. Before the situation was, "gosh the SCOTUS upheld arbitration, but who knows where the limit is." Now they've made it clear; there is no limit, the laws allowing it are valid under the Constitution, and no means no.
There is no "right case" that would overturn every precedent; that is only the situation when the Court didn't go as far as needed to resolve something, because of the details of the cases that were before it. In this case, they gave a clear ruling that doesn't leave anything unexamined. There is nothing left to argue.
See, you go way off the rails. You imply you didn't understand, because instead of just saying you disagree, you say it is "clueless."
That is an explicit statement of not comprehending the reasons for what you're disagreeing with.
It may be that there is a fundamentally subjective question here; having a different opinion is good. Everybody can have an opinion. But claiming other opinions are "wrong" or "clueless" is pretty much the only way for you to be factually wrong in a subjective judgment.;)
All that it would take to get from my opinion to yours, if you take out the pejorative nonsense, is to be less easily impressed by raw engineering. Not everybody is impressed by a bridge that is merely longer or taller than other bridges, but uses the same design.
It should be pretty obvious what my (perfectly reasonable) opinion was when I said that getting humans into orbit was impressive, but going to the moon wasn't. The moon is just a location in orbit with good television optics. It didn't use new rocket concepts; it used bigger rockets. That was the whole point; to get good at the known engineering problems of big rockets. Building a niche industry is great and all that, but it doesn't necessarily expand humanity's limits.
The "stupidity" stuff I have to say is rather "stupid."
Slashdot Mirror
Handwaving to get rid of numbers you don't like doesn't make you "numerate." It actually shows a lack of understanding even that numbers have identity. I don't think you could even have a more lacking philosophical understanding of numbers than that. Even a person who never heard of numbers is ahead of you; they don't know they exist, but they also haven't denied their existence.
Well, that part is subjective. Maybe it is a problem, or not, even without knowing the cause. You're conflating "problem" with "cause."
I don't have to "worry about who I might offend" to take the time to attempt to be a decent and respectful human being.
I will also say, I don't mind if you're offended when I tell you that you disgust me and I think you're a jackass.
This is silly and simplistic.
If I'm talking about a specific woman, she might not want to be called [whatever polite women in my location prefer to be called]. So if I'm going to address her gender, (probably a bad idea) then I would need to know her own personal feelings on the different words. If instead I didn't want to get personal at all, but needed to have a technical discussion that involved differences between men and women, I might indeed seek the safety of the word "female." There might also be both adults and children in the group, and I don't want to even say the word "girls" unless my wife is participating in the activity. For real reasons, both good and bad but all real and based on experience.
Don't just assume that people can tell the difference between an inclusive and exclusive statement just because they come to slashdot and self-associate as a "nerd."
Then why do "Black Lives Matter" supporters respond with NO!!! when confronted with the statement "All Lives Matter"?
Because they're making an inclusive statement, and you're responding by telling them it isn't true.
Let me translate it for you:
Blorg lives matter. Therefore, Blarg lives do not matter: T/F
Does that clear it up, or are you not good at these types of test? I'll try it with Bob and Amy.
Amy says, "My life matters." Bob says, "No, all lives matter." Bob has told Amy that her life doesn't matter: T/F
See, Bob says both things. Where he's purporting to correct her, he's literally saying her life doesn't matter. Then he contradicts himself, sortof, by saying all lives matter. But it is the part where he's implying she is incorrect that is literally saying her life doesn't matter. Notice that when Amy says, "My life matters" that is an inclusive statement. She's saying that her life is included in the set of things that matter. Bob is telling her no, it isn't.
There also might be some other more subtle things going on with the language coding, but it isn't really worth getting into the dog whistles; most people who can hear them will pretend they can't anyways, so it is an impossible conversation.
That's not what SJW's actually believe, it's just what they *say* they believe.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant faithful one hundred percent.
5% > 0, so I'm not sure why assholes think that means there isn't a problem.
OTOH, I'm also not sure why it says $.72 instead of $.95
I don't think slashdot editors are clueful enough to take on this sort of topic. Trolling for gamegate might get some clicks, but I doubt it increases it over the long run. Maybe just avoid these issues, because your readers aren't mature enough for the topic, and your editors aren't mature enough to select reasonable stories?
No, you liar, the words are still right up there. You're saying that the sea ice "continues to set records on the low side now and then."
That is complete intentional horseshit.
From the link you found, but didn't even read:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
The variation doesn't even bring it back to what was a record ten years ago; that is how far the changes have gone.
Don't be a fucking tool. You linked to something that totally refuted what you said, because you didn't even read it and check what it says.
Well gosh, you could just lift a weight up with an electric motor and store electricity that way. Let it drop and generate your power. See, the thing you missed was, when somebody else said something kinda like what you said, you know, the person whose idea you're copying... they were probably talking about price. But see, if the thought experiment is that you have 10x the total power, well cost doesn't matter in the same way. Now, even at 15% storage efficiency using something like rocks, it works out.
Storing electricity isn't hard.
Learn how to think for yourself, then you'll understand which math to use. Don't worry about the physics, you're not even up to the use case.
And if enough people assume they did that, then they don't even have to do it.
Derp, derp, derp, derp, derp.
You can't even read, how would you know?
Democrats support the 2nd Amendment, don't be a AM-radio idiot.
That's an exceptionally ignorant statement, one that would be disproven by the facts if you should choose to go and check on them.
Just incredible derpiness there. You should be ashamed to point at data without pointing at data. You're wrong... look it up before you argue! You know as well as I do that I've read the numbers, and you haven't.
You clearly don't even follow the story over time. The articles come up every year, and every year you wave your hands and pretend they say whatever you were told by your TEEVEE to believe. Maybe it is worth actually reading the stories and finding out what they really say?
Or at least accept that you didn't even check and have no idea what the state of sea ice is.
The signal to noise ratio doesn't change when you merely use less data.
False. Your statement is not true by default; it requires all the data to be known to be of equal quality.
Any time that some data is more strongly correlated than others, your noise is going to go down when you throw out the lower quality data.
Don't wave your hands, think it through and make a logical, reasoned argument.
Newsflash, you don't have to live in a cave to not watch TV advertising. Wow, talk about "living in a cave." You think everybody does things the same as you!
5% of American households don't even have a TV; up from 1% 10 years ago. Of those who have a TV, many only watch public television, or only watch during 1 sport season.
Many more use time-shifting devices that automatically skip ads.
I've certainly never seen the ad. And I don't live in a cave; only rich people can afford properties with caves. Good luck finding a cave to live in for less than seven figures.
They can't exactly delete it before they get in trouble for having it unless they get the others who have it to delete it also. ;) Just my one conspiracy angle on this.
If they figured out that being "liberal" or supporting Free Software is just political speech that they should ignore, that would help them pare it down a little. :)
Tracking the Linux Journal readers alone probably costs them a lot of storage and search noise.
Even with good search tools, signal to noise ratio is still important.
Excess data with no correlation to the problems NSA is trying to solve (without getting into a debate over what those are) is simply noise.
When I wanted "my own" bigmath library, I just took one of IBM's and wrote my own wrappers for it. I didn't want to re-invent the bugs, but I certainly wanted to be in full control of any applied code changes, and the wrapper semantics, etc.
The problem with "waterfall" being seen as a bad word is that a lot of people are wandering week to week without a master plan, without longterm planning that takes responsibility for a properly layered architecture. Instead, they just mash together plugins and libraries with different conventions, assumptions, and semantics. It might indeed make it easier to work with difficult website clients who want to fiddle-faddle the requirements every week, but even there when you push that crap into your underlying support layers you're just burying mines and often not even mapping them.
Don't reinvent the wheel; don't re-implement basic algorithms. However, always check the gearing for a new vehicle, don't just re-use any older gear that will fit. And if the wheel needs an adapter plate, at least consider building a revised wheel instead.
It amazes me how many people want to both use external resources in their project, and then also don't want any responsibility for managing those externalities. In this case, they were just blindly trusting where there was no system to technologically preserve trust. It was just a hope and a prayer.
This is why distros do their own package management, and don't let upstream devs delete packages directly from repos. This was already a known risk. The question now is, will people who made this mistake admit it and change, or just call names and blame others and remain exposed in the future?
Just when I thought slashdot couldn't get any stupider, the climate denialists are here in force. Of all freakin' places.
Wow, talk about a comprehension fail.
Get ready, dudebro, you're gonna love this: Ice melts and freezes with the seasons, and they're going to still be talking about record melting every year. And since you don't care and didn't read it, you didn't know that. Oops, they never said it wasn't going to freeze in the winter, they said the annual ice extent will shrink every year. Notice the difference? No, I didn't think you would.
Nonsense, total nonsense. The Court wasn't on the edge on this, and has never gone back and forth.
You have to actually learn about the subject in order to have relevant comments. It turns out there is more to it than just waiving your hands and saying "Roe vs Wade."
And yes, in this case the ruling prevents you from challenging an arbitration agreement in court. You're going to have to find some other way to attack the contract if you want to go to court; arbitration agreements that say you can't sue; now you can't. Before the situation was, "gosh the SCOTUS upheld arbitration, but who knows where the limit is." Now they've made it clear; there is no limit, the laws allowing it are valid under the Constitution, and no means no.
There is no "right case" that would overturn every precedent; that is only the situation when the Court didn't go as far as needed to resolve something, because of the details of the cases that were before it. In this case, they gave a clear ruling that doesn't leave anything unexamined. There is nothing left to argue.
See, you go way off the rails. You imply you didn't understand, because instead of just saying you disagree, you say it is "clueless."
That is an explicit statement of not comprehending the reasons for what you're disagreeing with.
It may be that there is a fundamentally subjective question here; having a different opinion is good. Everybody can have an opinion. But claiming other opinions are "wrong" or "clueless" is pretty much the only way for you to be factually wrong in a subjective judgment. ;)
All that it would take to get from my opinion to yours, if you take out the pejorative nonsense, is to be less easily impressed by raw engineering. Not everybody is impressed by a bridge that is merely longer or taller than other bridges, but uses the same design.
It should be pretty obvious what my (perfectly reasonable) opinion was when I said that getting humans into orbit was impressive, but going to the moon wasn't. The moon is just a location in orbit with good television optics. It didn't use new rocket concepts; it used bigger rockets. That was the whole point; to get good at the known engineering problems of big rockets. Building a niche industry is great and all that, but it doesn't necessarily expand humanity's limits.
The "stupidity" stuff I have to say is rather "stupid."
I don't give a rats ass about an imaginary "practical world," in the real world shit in a urinal is not beyond the scope of engineering to solve.
I can very much picture you scrubbing toilets in the future. But you might have to volunteer for the honor.