I've been noticing the uptick (or avalanche) of misleading stats in articles. Cuts aside, why did the article need to mention $300M (sic, it's billions, of course) in weather related damage last year? Without context, it's absolutely pointless except to spur an emotional response from the reader. That leads me to the conclusion that we're having a "discussion" based on an article written by someone with an obvious agenda, and that leads me to the conclusion we're just having another pointless us vs. them argument.
Even if that's a record (it is, actually, but you don't get that from the article, so there's no perspective), it's pointless for the discussion, weather trends up and down; the previous record was from 2005 (Katrina), but where's the link that reducing or adding forecasters (and we don't even know that, it's just "staff reductions") will impact how much a disaster will cost? Certainly preparedness is important - but do really think they would skimp on a major event, as opposed to the daily "it's raining in Seattle" type stuff?
The littoral combat ship (LCS) is a dual-class of relatively small surface vessels intended for operations in the littoral zone (close to shore) by the United States Navy.
No, I shouldn't have had to look it up. This is a nerd site - we know RAM, ROM, IC, STEM, we don't all know all the U.S. Navy lingo.
That's not really what they say, though - if everyone is driving themselves, then there's nobody to pay for a ride.
The obvious self interest doesn't escape me, but for the goals they are stating "to 'actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.'," they aren't wrong, either.
I'm not saying I agree with these companies, but a lot of good ideas get shot down with knee jerk reactions simply because somebody stands to make a profit on them.
I've been using Linux since slackware c. 1994. I actually have come to appreciate some of the things MS has done w.r.t. Linux - running a development web server under WSL makes my life a lot easier when I have to use Windows for most things anyway. Their development tools are actually really nice, too; the.Net system of being able to write interchangeably between different languages is not perfect, but works really well for most of my Windows development.
You can't punish people for what you THINK might be going on in their heads. People actually have to do something, unless you think Minority Report is actually a good idea. The act doesn't even actually have to happen, but there needs to at least be an attempt - or the clear threat of it. Sorry, that's the way it is. And it works for everybody, not just for old white men in power.
I was discussing the current environment, not Bushnell in particular - if someone is proven guilty, or admits it, then let the wrath happen. Some of the allegations are admitted to by the perpetrator - case closed; when it's denied, someone better have proof before we immediately jump to the conclusion of guilt. What's at issue is both whether or not something happened, or if what happened was actually consensual, or if what happened should actually be considered assault, or even harassment. Instead, social media immediately jumps on the accused without actually knowing what, if anything, actually happened.
It's humanly correct if it actually happens. It seems like a fraction of the accused admit it and take their "punishment," but the vast majority say it never happened or was consensual - why are people so quick to believe one side over the other? Because it fits the "narrative?" So due process doesn't matter anymore because the accusations confirm the bias of the masses?
Sorry for what happened to you; props for realistically looking at these accusations - on top of the fact that most have not even been proven, but all the accused are guilty in the eyes of the public anyway. People that hurt other people should be dealt with harshly, but there's a reason the legal system doesn't include lynch mobs.
With the key word being "allegedly." Instead of waiting for proof, organizations kowtow to social media pressure and fire the accused. It's messed up. I mean, if I ran a company I feel like I'd have to let someone go, too - it doesn't matter if everyone else is wrong if I lose half my business because people are so willing to believe one side and not the other, despite no proof.
The problem is most of these allegations haven't been proven. I have no reason to doubt them, some of the perpetrators admit it, but you don't fire people, or force them to resign, or ruin their lives, until the the allegations are proven - that's the legal system. Obviously employers can largely do whatever they want - they don't need to wait until allegations are proven. The kowtow to social media pressure when nothing has been proven, because people are JERKS and don't wait to reserve judgement, there are huge outcries just from an allegation, it can't possibly be that someone is lying or exaggerating. But then look what happens - a woman doesn't like someone, doesn't like a politician, is looking for a payout - and suddenly that consensual encounter 20 years ago, which she never complained about then, is suddenly sexual harassment.
I'm not saying all these guys are innocent, and I'm not saying nothing should be done, I'm saying we actually do have a legal system that ISN'T being applied in either direction. You know when it works? When a victim reports the crime as soon as possible, not decades later to jump on the bandwagon of all the accusations.
Adware? That's the user's fault, not the app maker. If your paid app has ads, that's an issue between you and the app maker. If your app is free and you're complaining about ads... well... too bad. You knew it had ads before you installed it.
It's in discussions completely unrelated to race or the civil war - no matter how you use it, you get labeled a racist. Perhaps not by you, but somebody losing the argument will just call it out, and honest discourse, once again, gets stopped cold. This is the state of political discourse.
I actually don't believe in requiring prescriptions for any drugs - they should all be legalized. I get that some people have no self control and will end up killing themselves, but history, w.r.t. other drugs and other countries has shown using government resources on education and drug treatment programs is more effective.
I had two shoulder surgeries. I knew the problems with the the hydrocodone I was prescribed. I stretched out my prescription from 1 week to 2 by only taking it at night so that I could sleep and still drive to work the next day without being a danger to people around me. When I asked for more, after two weeks, the doctor looked at me like I just grew horns on my head and was the devil himself. The issue was I was still in a great deal of pain. I used all my allotted physical therapy sessions and still wasn't better. So I didn't get the other shoulder done for years because I asked what the point was if it was still just going to hurt.
Then I found out from a new orthopedist that the first one didn't remove enough bone. The pain wasn't in my head.
On a different note, my son had to take inhaler using a pediatric inhaler tube. My dog found it one night and chewed it up - the tube, yes, the TUBE, requires a prescription. We were on vacation, and it was a nightmare.
Then when had a bout of conjunctivitis, we KNEW EXACTLY what we needed, but still had to go to the doctor, wasting their time, our time, money, just to get a prescription for what we already knew we needed. I'm not suggesting people always diagnose themselves, but sometimes it's really obvious and really annoying to wait hours or days to see a doctor when you could just go buy something at the pharmacy immediately and start treating your problem. I'm not suggesting people not see their doctors, I'm saying sometimes you really don't need them.
It's not "deregulation," I think the FDA should still evaluate drugs and the claims of the companies, but a prescription is to tell you what the doctor thinks you be taking, it shouldn't be REQUIRED to take something.
I mean, WTF? They look at you like a criminal just for buying cold medication with Pseudoephedrine.
I'm sorry that other people would be idiots and kill themselves, but natural selection is important to the survival of humankind.
No, the myth is that uttering the phrase "state's rights" make you racist. it doesn't. I support CA in this. I have, and always will, support states rights over anything not explicitly stated in the constitution as a role of the federal government. This, apparently, makes me racist.
Have you actually traveled? I just got back from a work trip - no strip search, no electronics seized, no passwords demanded - it's the same as it's been since GW.
Windows 10 is trying to change the styles, too, and all you get is half the applications use one look, half use the other: "Here's a slick new settings interface! Oh... you want to actually do something Useful? Here's the old one." Most users don't care.
True.... the same can be said about the U.S. And, really, the U.S. is not a "shithole."
Anyone who was going to visit the U.S. but decided against it because Trump was elected is a complete moron. Disneyland is not staffed with gestapo.
Back on topic, my first though on reading TFS is that there was a mistake - 150,000 "innocent" people were arrested (and that's just in this current raid), but to many hard line Muslims, anybody who isn't one is not "innocent." When CAIR says it "condemns the deaths of innocents," they aren't talking about majority of people killed in terrorist attacks, they are talking about the Muslim "collateral damage."
I worked with a guy who put his foot through his TV when his football team lost (and refused to go to his daughter's wedding because she planned it on a Sunday "on purpose" to interfere with his game day). I actually think there are too many people like this, although "too many" means "more than zero." I also would mention the shit that happens in soccer stadiums around the world.
Is it? Just because the narrative that violent video games causes violence didn't turn out to fit reality, that doesn't mean that violent video games doesn't affect behavior. Granted, it's not just video games, but violence in media, including video games, may beget violence, but desensitizes people to it. That can affect behavior in ways they aren't looking at, like how one reacts to certain news stories - like how one reacts to stories (either way) violence happening throughout the world, which affects how you might donate time or money, or whether you support your government's reaction (or lack thereof) to it, or what you do when your neighbor is beating their spouse or kids.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been noticing the uptick (or avalanche) of misleading stats in articles. Cuts aside, why did the article need to mention $300M (sic, it's billions, of course) in weather related damage last year? Without context, it's absolutely pointless except to spur an emotional response from the reader. That leads me to the conclusion that we're having a "discussion" based on an article written by someone with an obvious agenda, and that leads me to the conclusion we're just having another pointless us vs. them argument.
Even if that's a record (it is, actually, but you don't get that from the article, so there's no perspective), it's pointless for the discussion, weather trends up and down; the previous record was from 2005 (Katrina), but where's the link that reducing or adding forecasters (and we don't even know that, it's just "staff reductions") will impact how much a disaster will cost? Certainly preparedness is important - but do really think they would skimp on a major event, as opposed to the daily "it's raining in Seattle" type stuff?
Wikipedia:
The littoral combat ship (LCS) is a dual-class of relatively small surface vessels intended for operations in the littoral zone (close to shore) by the United States Navy.
No, I shouldn't have had to look it up. This is a nerd site - we know RAM, ROM, IC, STEM, we don't all know all the U.S. Navy lingo.
No disagreement.
That's not really what they say, though - if everyone is driving themselves, then there's nobody to pay for a ride.
The obvious self interest doesn't escape me, but for the goals they are stating "to 'actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.'," they aren't wrong, either.
I'm not saying I agree with these companies, but a lot of good ideas get shot down with knee jerk reactions simply because somebody stands to make a profit on them.
I've been using Linux since slackware c. 1994. I actually have come to appreciate some of the things MS has done w.r.t. Linux - running a development web server under WSL makes my life a lot easier when I have to use Windows for most things anyway. Their development tools are actually really nice, too; the .Net system of being able to write interchangeably between different languages is not perfect, but works really well for most of my Windows development.
Yet, the marketing speak is absurd.
Someone got a fortune cookie...
You can't punish people for what you THINK might be going on in their heads. People actually have to do something, unless you think Minority Report is actually a good idea. The act doesn't even actually have to happen, but there needs to at least be an attempt - or the clear threat of it. Sorry, that's the way it is. And it works for everybody, not just for old white men in power.
I was discussing the current environment, not Bushnell in particular - if someone is proven guilty, or admits it, then let the wrath happen. Some of the allegations are admitted to by the perpetrator - case closed; when it's denied, someone better have proof before we immediately jump to the conclusion of guilt. What's at issue is both whether or not something happened, or if what happened was actually consensual, or if what happened should actually be considered assault, or even harassment. Instead, social media immediately jumps on the accused without actually knowing what, if anything, actually happened.
It's humanly correct if it actually happens. It seems like a fraction of the accused admit it and take their "punishment," but the vast majority say it never happened or was consensual - why are people so quick to believe one side over the other? Because it fits the "narrative?" So due process doesn't matter anymore because the accusations confirm the bias of the masses?
Sorry for what happened to you; props for realistically looking at these accusations - on top of the fact that most have not even been proven, but all the accused are guilty in the eyes of the public anyway. People that hurt other people should be dealt with harshly, but there's a reason the legal system doesn't include lynch mobs.
With the key word being "allegedly." Instead of waiting for proof, organizations kowtow to social media pressure and fire the accused. It's messed up. I mean, if I ran a company I feel like I'd have to let someone go, too - it doesn't matter if everyone else is wrong if I lose half my business because people are so willing to believe one side and not the other, despite no proof.
The problem is most of these allegations haven't been proven. I have no reason to doubt them, some of the perpetrators admit it, but you don't fire people, or force them to resign, or ruin their lives, until the the allegations are proven - that's the legal system. Obviously employers can largely do whatever they want - they don't need to wait until allegations are proven. The kowtow to social media pressure when nothing has been proven, because people are JERKS and don't wait to reserve judgement, there are huge outcries just from an allegation, it can't possibly be that someone is lying or exaggerating. But then look what happens - a woman doesn't like someone, doesn't like a politician, is looking for a payout - and suddenly that consensual encounter 20 years ago, which she never complained about then, is suddenly sexual harassment.
I'm not saying all these guys are innocent, and I'm not saying nothing should be done, I'm saying we actually do have a legal system that ISN'T being applied in either direction. You know when it works? When a victim reports the crime as soon as possible, not decades later to jump on the bandwagon of all the accusations.
Adware? That's the user's fault, not the app maker. If your paid app has ads, that's an issue between you and the app maker. If your app is free and you're complaining about ads... well... too bad. You knew it had ads before you installed it.
I understand why, but it's still wrong. It's used to stop honest political discourse dead in it's tracks.
It's in discussions completely unrelated to race or the civil war - no matter how you use it, you get labeled a racist. Perhaps not by you, but somebody losing the argument will just call it out, and honest discourse, once again, gets stopped cold. This is the state of political discourse.
I actually don't believe in requiring prescriptions for any drugs - they should all be legalized. I get that some people have no self control and will end up killing themselves, but history, w.r.t. other drugs and other countries has shown using government resources on education and drug treatment programs is more effective.
I had two shoulder surgeries. I knew the problems with the the hydrocodone I was prescribed. I stretched out my prescription from 1 week to 2 by only taking it at night so that I could sleep and still drive to work the next day without being a danger to people around me. When I asked for more, after two weeks, the doctor looked at me like I just grew horns on my head and was the devil himself. The issue was I was still in a great deal of pain. I used all my allotted physical therapy sessions and still wasn't better. So I didn't get the other shoulder done for years because I asked what the point was if it was still just going to hurt.
Then I found out from a new orthopedist that the first one didn't remove enough bone. The pain wasn't in my head.
On a different note, my son had to take inhaler using a pediatric inhaler tube. My dog found it one night and chewed it up - the tube, yes, the TUBE, requires a prescription. We were on vacation, and it was a nightmare.
Then when had a bout of conjunctivitis, we KNEW EXACTLY what we needed, but still had to go to the doctor, wasting their time, our time, money, just to get a prescription for what we already knew we needed. I'm not suggesting people always diagnose themselves, but sometimes it's really obvious and really annoying to wait hours or days to see a doctor when you could just go buy something at the pharmacy immediately and start treating your problem. I'm not suggesting people not see their doctors, I'm saying sometimes you really don't need them.
It's not "deregulation," I think the FDA should still evaluate drugs and the claims of the companies, but a prescription is to tell you what the doctor thinks you be taking, it shouldn't be REQUIRED to take something.
I mean, WTF? They look at you like a criminal just for buying cold medication with Pseudoephedrine.
I'm sorry that other people would be idiots and kill themselves, but natural selection is important to the survival of humankind.
No, the myth is that uttering the phrase "state's rights" make you racist. it doesn't. I support CA in this. I have, and always will, support states rights over anything not explicitly stated in the constitution as a role of the federal government. This, apparently, makes me racist.
Have you actually traveled? I just got back from a work trip - no strip search, no electronics seized, no passwords demanded - it's the same as it's been since GW.
Windows 10 is trying to change the styles, too, and all you get is half the applications use one look, half use the other: "Here's a slick new settings interface! Oh... you want to actually do something Useful? Here's the old one." Most users don't care.
True.... the same can be said about the U.S. And, really, the U.S. is not a "shithole."
Anyone who was going to visit the U.S. but decided against it because Trump was elected is a complete moron. Disneyland is not staffed with gestapo.
Back on topic, my first though on reading TFS is that there was a mistake - 150,000 "innocent" people were arrested (and that's just in this current raid), but to many hard line Muslims, anybody who isn't one is not "innocent." When CAIR says it "condemns the deaths of innocents," they aren't talking about majority of people killed in terrorist attacks, they are talking about the Muslim "collateral damage."
I worked with a guy who put his foot through his TV when his football team lost (and refused to go to his daughter's wedding because she planned it on a Sunday "on purpose" to interfere with his game day). I actually think there are too many people like this, although "too many" means "more than zero." I also would mention the shit that happens in soccer stadiums around the world.
Is it? Just because the narrative that violent video games causes violence didn't turn out to fit reality, that doesn't mean that violent video games doesn't affect behavior. Granted, it's not just video games, but violence in media, including video games, may beget violence, but desensitizes people to it. That can affect behavior in ways they aren't looking at, like how one reacts to certain news stories - like how one reacts to stories (either way) violence happening throughout the world, which affects how you might donate time or money, or whether you support your government's reaction (or lack thereof) to it, or what you do when your neighbor is beating their spouse or kids.
Because good enough isn't good enough.
I know... I was actually thinking about Trump tweets when I wrote that, but I couldn't think of a better word.
Good - you're not who I was referring to.