I don't know anybody that would self-select as being in the worst category of pot smoker, so I don't know what they're like. Unless you can gather some data on what the lives of these people are like, my point stands. It's practically a tautology: the worst among them (self selected) will most likely have pretty rotten lives.
Let me rephrase the above comment to be not so abusive of statistics:
Approximately 0% mortality rate when drinkers try to quit
Few people seem to realize just how dangerous alcohol is. 10% mortality rate when alcoholics try to quit woke me up.
That's a bad statistic, since it has already selected the most severe sufferers from alcohol. You would find similarly bad outcomes (though not the medically dangerous withdrawal specifically) when you look at the severest sufferers of most any drug addiction.
That you would say such a thing says more than anything else you said.
Fair enough. I don't care to cater to racists. I'll leave the social outreach to people that are less brusque than me. But I guess that's not what you meant?
My apologies for my tone and for taking the conversation in the wrong direction. I missed the word "orally", and did not realize baking soda was used that way.
That doesn't seem like a good enough reason to put the kibosh on the study of intelligence. The racial angle is weak. Everyone that matters knows racial differences are small. But what we have to gain by learning about intelligence is huge. We can learn about learning disorders. We can try to ameliorate the damage of dementia. Granted that this also opens up a can of worms regarding what interventions are ethical, but that's not a racial issue.
The fact that something could--if you bend over backwards by ignoring the actual numbers--be used to promote racism shouldn't be a reason not to discuss it candidly when the context is bettering everybody's lives.
Try injecting that cake and see what happens. Really, I'll wait. Scared of needles? That's okay. Next time you get a very deep cut, just work the cake into the cut. Let me know how that works for you.
But the alternative isn't a 100% chance of death. Waiting longer for an operation carries risk, but they're not making the emergency lifesaving operations wait.
Would contamination be restricted to microbes that can survive in a basic environment even if the baking soda is dry? I thought antimicrobials generally had to be solution/liquid/gas to be effective.
And that's not even getting into spores which can't thrive in a basic environment, but wouldn't be killed either.
Maybe Arm & Hammer is fine, and maybe it will kill 90% of patients when administered internally. The FDA approval process is what ensures either testing, or more likely, strict adherence to a procedure that produces a product in spec for internal use. Shouldn't we at least have a ballpark estimate of what the risk is before we start using unapproved drugs? (Emergencies may be different, but they may not. Are there any surgeries where baking soda is guaranteed to be the difference between life and death?)
Nice, thanks for informing me. That's a hell of a lot more progress than I was aware of. I don't suppose the system can be administered by a typical user? I couldn't find any documentation that was comprehensible to this guy, who hasn't administered a Windows system since he was a kid. I'm hoping for UIs that would dynamically prompt me about permissions, with the right amount of granularity, so I wouldn't have to read hundreds of lines.
Are you saying the backend is working for configuring the OS to be hardened against all sorts of malicious software, but the OS isn't configured/shipped that way? Because regardless of ACLs, any.exe that I run can wipe most or all of the important files on my hard disk. This is not granular permissions.
(Replying to myself.) I've remembered that SELinux has a lot of power for application sandboxing (if not granular permissions), so Linux is half way there. I'm reading about it now.
A properly setup and secured Windows network would not be open to most of this junk.
Nonsense! Windows is fundamentally insecure, due to the lack of granular permissions. (Linux and MacOS are also insecure in this respect.) For Windows to be a secure OS, you need to be able to install an untrustworthy app and not have it be able to ruin your system. That means AwesomeScreenSaver.exe should not have access to files/documents, and it definitely should not have access to read the screenbuffer. I'm sure there are huge technical obstacles to this--the easy part is letting each app run as a separate user with separate permissions. The hard part is libifying everything so it's possible to grant a permission that allows WRITING to the screen buffer without reading it, or listening for hotkeys without listening to every keypress. Many functionalities which we're accustomed to accessing by calling a low level API will need to be buried inside higher level APIs, and only special-case trusted/must-have applications would be able to call the old insecure APIs. This would let me install unmodified work software and maybe some high performance 3D games, but new software would need to use permission-aware APIs.
The other thing that Microsoft could address more easily is installers that need admin permissions. Every installer is a black box, and most get carte-blanche to do whatever they want. Linux has shown that it's not hard to create installers that run within well-defined parameters. Some may need to execute custom shell code, but it's possible to examine this shell code before it runs.
Inertia and money are what's preventing Microsoft from implementing a strong permissions framework.
It seems to me that Microsoft has been negligent with security. They don't support any sort of granular permissions, nor any modes for running applications that would limit the damage they can do. (Why can DailyJoke.exe read/write all files except system files, read the screen buffer, and listen for keypresses?) If granular permissions are too hard, why has sandboxing not been implemented? Why is every installer a black box which must be run as admin?
However, since we haven't legislated that they aren't allowed to be negligent, this is legal. I can be negligent when building a table. You can be negligent when you reheat your leftovers. This is not illegal. But given that Microsoft has a type of monopoly and their security negligence is costing time, money, and even some lives, would it be appropriate to mandate any sort of stronger security model?
Russia this, Russia that - seems like the left really fears them for something despite being Soviet themselves.
They are the world's most powerful dictatorship. Putin has been fairly successful in pretending not to be a dictator, but the more of his critics and opponents he kills, the more obvious the charade becomes. If that's not enough cause for concern, Russian-language propaganda against the US is. (Russia's media is controlled by the state.) If that's not a cause for concern, Russia's annexation of other countries (and the world's failure to respond) is.
That's cute, but have you heard about Russian propaganda about the US? One of the ways Putin maintains power is by rousing hatred against the US. Fortunately (for now), another way he stays in power is by painting himself as a peace-broken. (Remember, he controls the Russian media.) So there is quite a lot of aggressive sentiment toward the US, but that won't necessarily translate into war.
Offensive videos? Like Pewdiepie making fun of white supremecists? Cowardice is the only excuse for interpreting his video as antisemitic. Fear of stupid customers misinterpreting statements. These companies are surely too big to care about being respected, but I respect companies that have more spine.
people shouldn't make generalizations about a whole country based on the actions of a few people
Unfortunately, when the amount of people committing an infraction is above 1%, this kind of judgment becomes hard to avoid. It's why women think men catcall and sexually harass them. (Some do! A small sample giving all of us men a bad name.) It's why a lot of Hong Kongers dislike Chinese people (racially identical): some few Chinese people (perhaps also 1%) do a lot of nasty, uncivilized stuff. The perception won't go away until the percent adds a few zeros. When 0.001% of Chinese people steal toilet paper from bathrooms or smoke in restaurants or let their babies defecate on the street instead of buying diapers, that reputation will go away.
But, you know, it's totally racist to say that there is a culture of dishonesty in China, and if you don't trust products of China to be what they say they are, you're a big bad racist.
China isn't all bad, but there is a huge culture of doing whatever you can get away with in China. That includes cutting in line, throwing parties in the Ikea showroom, noise pollution, abusing every type of product promotion, over-hunting for food (including non-game animals and even pets), pissing in the street, salespeople cheating their clients, stores lying about the products they sell, etc.
Personally, having known a ton of Chinese people, I think the problem isn't lack of integrity but rather, the habitual division of society into one's "clan" versus everyone else. And it's hard to hold anyone accountable, because their bosses and friends most likely ALSO divide the world into "us" and "them". Sometimes the police even do this--don't expect justice because the other guy's brother's wife's son is friends with the cop. As for what it's like within the "clan" group, the friends I've had in HK and China haven't seemed any different than American friends--they're not liars or cheats. Now, the dynamic of "face" and honesty/lies is a whole 'nother issue, which I won't touch here. Suffice to say that the issue of reviewer fraud is not related to face (embarrassment).
This is my armchair analysis, subject to biases and lack of large numbers.
Note that Hydrox has been reproduced using taste tests, science, and our wonderful legal system. It's available here: https://www.amazon.com/Leaf-Hy...
Indeed, I didn't purchase it. I used the Macbooks at work. I like the OS and love the touchpads. The apps I use are heavier than what you've described--in particular, Unity3D, Firefox with a million tabs, and Chrome with a million tabs. (I also use Xcode, but I've found it's not resource intensive except when compiling.) Even Skype seemed to demand unreasonably high resources at times.
My new computer, a solidly middle of the line MSI (obviously I mean quality rather than specs), doesn't even turn the fan on full power during normal usage. This computer isn't throttling unless the drivers were specifically written to pretend it's not hot. And when I max out the CPU, the fan runs on high and blasts out a ton of hot air. The cooling system appears to be solid. It's certainly possible that it throttles during extended periods of 100% CPU usage, but if so, I guarantee Macbooks will perform even worse: either they cannot dissipate this amount of heat, due to not having a powerful cooling system (and so they will throttle), or they will dissipate the heat directly into my lap/hands/wrists, since I AM THE HEAT SINK connected to the computer's aluminum body. Either way, it's a pretty bad result.
I have a Thinkpad that's even older than the MBP. It gets just as hot, but it has much higher specs relative to its age (excellent CPU and GPU at the time it was bought), and it has its own bells and whistles, like the fact that it can survive liquid being spilled on the keyboard. And I can easily take it apart to clean the heat sink and keyboard. So as you can see, I have more experience with good laptops brands/lines than bad ones, and when comparing only the good products (for example, not Dell, not Ideapads, nothing from a "budget" line), the Macbooks still cost twice as much to get similar specs and features. (Again, I'm comparing laptops to laptops, not ultra-portables.)
What an ignorant comment. Like typical spec-whores, you don't look at the quality of the product, just the immediate specs. For example, Apple's MacBooks/Pro don't throttle the CPU even at high workloads because they properly designed the chassis (using aluminium, an excellent thermal conductor) and cooling system to handle the heat. Virtually every competing laptop which is cheaper but uses a 45W Core i7 will throttle since the plastic chassis, can't dissipate the heat as well. Its one of the reasons Dell's XPS 15" has problems with capacitor whine.
Look at the price Microsoft sells its 13.3" Surface Book and then compare it to the 2016 15" MacBook Pro. On price, they're almost the same, but the MBP has double the processor (4-core 45W/6MB L3 vs 2-core 15W/4MB L3). Also, the MBP has 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports all directly connected to the CPU (which means you get the full 40Gb/s bandwidth unlike any other laptop with TB3 which goes through the PCH and thus suffers 'overhead').
What a jerk.
The Macbook Pro I used got hot enough to be uncomfortable, like standing next to a heater. I don't care how well it dissipates heat when it's being dissipated into my lap. Its PC replacement doesn't get hot. It has a powerful fan and huge vents, so if you think it's throttling, the burden of proof is on you. Since I have no interest in anything other than a traditional laptop, I'm not going to analyze the Microsoft Surface. As for the Thunderbolt, connections that exceed the speed of the connected media don't add value. Are you connecting RAM via Thunderbolt?
Your attitude doesn't make your answer more factual or relevant. I have certain requirements for specs. I have a budget. Does that make me a spec whore? Perhaps it looks that way to a person that uses their computer for web browsing and sending e-mails.
Haha. I wonder if people are starting to realize a high-spec laptop costs 3x as much from Apple as the competition? (Though I admit Apple only costs 2x as much as mid- to high-end laptops. (Note that "high-end" refers to build quality and hardware/drivers, irrespective of specs.))
Apple may realize they need to sweeten the deal to keep their customers. However, if you have a budget and a firm list of requirements, these applications are going to make little difference.
For three thousand years, everyone "knew" that the only places to play go pieces in the early game was on columns 3 and 4.
Then A.I. played on column 5 in the shoulder position on move 37 and it payed off enormously with control of the middle of the board later in the game... which it won.
This is a tangent, but you got me curious and I had to go find it. For anyone looking to see what Maxo-Texas means, the game can be viewed here (scroll down): https://gogameguru.com/alphago...
- more sexual discrimination - more beauty discrimination - more racial discrimination - more age-based discrimination - more obsequious in-your-business workers
Tipping sucks. It isn't statistically tied to anything good, particularly better service. To read/listen to more about the negative effects (and correlations) of tipping, the Freakonomics podcast has got you covered: http://freakonomics.com/podcas...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know anybody that would self-select as being in the worst category of pot smoker, so I don't know what they're like. Unless you can gather some data on what the lives of these people are like, my point stands. It's practically a tautology: the worst among them (self selected) will most likely have pretty rotten lives.
Let me rephrase the above comment to be not so abusive of statistics:
Approximately 0% mortality rate when drinkers try to quit
Few people seem to realize just how dangerous alcohol is. 10% mortality rate when alcoholics try to quit woke me up.
That's a bad statistic, since it has already selected the most severe sufferers from alcohol. You would find similarly bad outcomes (though not the medically dangerous withdrawal specifically) when you look at the severest sufferers of most any drug addiction.
"Everyone that matters..."
That you would say such a thing says more than anything else you said.
Fair enough. I don't care to cater to racists. I'll leave the social outreach to people that are less brusque than me. But I guess that's not what you meant?
My apologies for my tone and for taking the conversation in the wrong direction. I missed the word "orally", and did not realize baking soda was used that way.
That doesn't seem like a good enough reason to put the kibosh on the study of intelligence. The racial angle is weak. Everyone that matters knows racial differences are small. But what we have to gain by learning about intelligence is huge. We can learn about learning disorders. We can try to ameliorate the damage of dementia. Granted that this also opens up a can of worms regarding what interventions are ethical, but that's not a racial issue.
The fact that something could--if you bend over backwards by ignoring the actual numbers--be used to promote racism shouldn't be a reason not to discuss it candidly when the context is bettering everybody's lives.
Try injecting that cake and see what happens. Really, I'll wait. Scared of needles? That's okay. Next time you get a very deep cut, just work the cake into the cut. Let me know how that works for you.
But the alternative isn't a 100% chance of death. Waiting longer for an operation carries risk, but they're not making the emergency lifesaving operations wait.
Would contamination be restricted to microbes that can survive in a basic environment even if the baking soda is dry? I thought antimicrobials generally had to be solution/liquid/gas to be effective.
And that's not even getting into spores which can't thrive in a basic environment, but wouldn't be killed either.
Maybe Arm & Hammer is fine, and maybe it will kill 90% of patients when administered internally. The FDA approval process is what ensures either testing, or more likely, strict adherence to a procedure that produces a product in spec for internal use. Shouldn't we at least have a ballpark estimate of what the risk is before we start using unapproved drugs? (Emergencies may be different, but they may not. Are there any surgeries where baking soda is guaranteed to be the difference between life and death?)
Nice, thanks for informing me. That's a hell of a lot more progress than I was aware of. I don't suppose the system can be administered by a typical user? I couldn't find any documentation that was comprehensible to this guy, who hasn't administered a Windows system since he was a kid. I'm hoping for UIs that would dynamically prompt me about permissions, with the right amount of granularity, so I wouldn't have to read hundreds of lines.
Are you saying the backend is working for configuring the OS to be hardened against all sorts of malicious software, but the OS isn't configured/shipped that way? Because regardless of ACLs, any .exe that I run can wipe most or all of the important files on my hard disk. This is not granular permissions.
(Replying to myself.) I've remembered that SELinux has a lot of power for application sandboxing (if not granular permissions), so Linux is half way there. I'm reading about it now.
A properly setup and secured Windows network would not be open to most of this junk.
Nonsense! Windows is fundamentally insecure, due to the lack of granular permissions. (Linux and MacOS are also insecure in this respect.) For Windows to be a secure OS, you need to be able to install an untrustworthy app and not have it be able to ruin your system. That means AwesomeScreenSaver.exe should not have access to files/documents, and it definitely should not have access to read the screenbuffer. I'm sure there are huge technical obstacles to this--the easy part is letting each app run as a separate user with separate permissions. The hard part is libifying everything so it's possible to grant a permission that allows WRITING to the screen buffer without reading it, or listening for hotkeys without listening to every keypress. Many functionalities which we're accustomed to accessing by calling a low level API will need to be buried inside higher level APIs, and only special-case trusted/must-have applications would be able to call the old insecure APIs. This would let me install unmodified work software and maybe some high performance 3D games, but new software would need to use permission-aware APIs.
The other thing that Microsoft could address more easily is installers that need admin permissions. Every installer is a black box, and most get carte-blanche to do whatever they want. Linux has shown that it's not hard to create installers that run within well-defined parameters. Some may need to execute custom shell code, but it's possible to examine this shell code before it runs.
Inertia and money are what's preventing Microsoft from implementing a strong permissions framework.
It seems to me that Microsoft has been negligent with security. They don't support any sort of granular permissions, nor any modes for running applications that would limit the damage they can do. (Why can DailyJoke.exe read/write all files except system files, read the screen buffer, and listen for keypresses?) If granular permissions are too hard, why has sandboxing not been implemented? Why is every installer a black box which must be run as admin?
However, since we haven't legislated that they aren't allowed to be negligent, this is legal. I can be negligent when building a table. You can be negligent when you reheat your leftovers. This is not illegal. But given that Microsoft has a type of monopoly and their security negligence is costing time, money, and even some lives, would it be appropriate to mandate any sort of stronger security model?
Russia this, Russia that - seems like the left really fears them for something despite being Soviet themselves.
They are the world's most powerful dictatorship. Putin has been fairly successful in pretending not to be a dictator, but the more of his critics and opponents he kills, the more obvious the charade becomes. If that's not enough cause for concern, Russian-language propaganda against the US is. (Russia's media is controlled by the state.) If that's not a cause for concern, Russia's annexation of other countries (and the world's failure to respond) is.
That's cute, but have you heard about Russian propaganda about the US? One of the ways Putin maintains power is by rousing hatred against the US. Fortunately (for now), another way he stays in power is by painting himself as a peace-broken. (Remember, he controls the Russian media.) So there is quite a lot of aggressive sentiment toward the US, but that won't necessarily translate into war.
Offensive videos? Like Pewdiepie making fun of white supremecists? Cowardice is the only excuse for interpreting his video as antisemitic. Fear of stupid customers misinterpreting statements. These companies are surely too big to care about being respected, but I respect companies that have more spine.
Indeed, race is not a problem.
people shouldn't make generalizations about a whole country based on the actions of a few people
Unfortunately, when the amount of people committing an infraction is above 1%, this kind of judgment becomes hard to avoid. It's why women think men catcall and sexually harass them. (Some do! A small sample giving all of us men a bad name.) It's why a lot of Hong Kongers dislike Chinese people (racially identical): some few Chinese people (perhaps also 1%) do a lot of nasty, uncivilized stuff. The perception won't go away until the percent adds a few zeros. When 0.001% of Chinese people steal toilet paper from bathrooms or smoke in restaurants or let their babies defecate on the street instead of buying diapers, that reputation will go away.
But, you know, it's totally racist to say that there is a culture of dishonesty in China, and if you don't trust products of China to be what they say they are, you're a big bad racist.
China isn't all bad, but there is a huge culture of doing whatever you can get away with in China. That includes cutting in line, throwing parties in the Ikea showroom, noise pollution, abusing every type of product promotion, over-hunting for food (including non-game animals and even pets), pissing in the street, salespeople cheating their clients, stores lying about the products they sell, etc.
Personally, having known a ton of Chinese people, I think the problem isn't lack of integrity but rather, the habitual division of society into one's "clan" versus everyone else. And it's hard to hold anyone accountable, because their bosses and friends most likely ALSO divide the world into "us" and "them". Sometimes the police even do this--don't expect justice because the other guy's brother's wife's son is friends with the cop. As for what it's like within the "clan" group, the friends I've had in HK and China haven't seemed any different than American friends--they're not liars or cheats. Now, the dynamic of "face" and honesty/lies is a whole 'nother issue, which I won't touch here. Suffice to say that the issue of reviewer fraud is not related to face (embarrassment).
This is my armchair analysis, subject to biases and lack of large numbers.
No, that's backwards. Oreo was a Hydrox knockoff.
Note that Hydrox has been reproduced using taste tests, science, and our wonderful legal system. It's available here: https://www.amazon.com/Leaf-Hy...
Indeed, I didn't purchase it. I used the Macbooks at work. I like the OS and love the touchpads. The apps I use are heavier than what you've described--in particular, Unity3D, Firefox with a million tabs, and Chrome with a million tabs. (I also use Xcode, but I've found it's not resource intensive except when compiling.) Even Skype seemed to demand unreasonably high resources at times.
http://www.ultrabookreview.com/14875-fix-throttling-xps-15/
My new computer, a solidly middle of the line MSI (obviously I mean quality rather than specs), doesn't even turn the fan on full power during normal usage. This computer isn't throttling unless the drivers were specifically written to pretend it's not hot. And when I max out the CPU, the fan runs on high and blasts out a ton of hot air. The cooling system appears to be solid. It's certainly possible that it throttles during extended periods of 100% CPU usage, but if so, I guarantee Macbooks will perform even worse: either they cannot dissipate this amount of heat, due to not having a powerful cooling system (and so they will throttle), or they will dissipate the heat directly into my lap/hands/wrists, since I AM THE HEAT SINK connected to the computer's aluminum body. Either way, it's a pretty bad result.
I have a Thinkpad that's even older than the MBP. It gets just as hot, but it has much higher specs relative to its age (excellent CPU and GPU at the time it was bought), and it has its own bells and whistles, like the fact that it can survive liquid being spilled on the keyboard. And I can easily take it apart to clean the heat sink and keyboard. So as you can see, I have more experience with good laptops brands/lines than bad ones, and when comparing only the good products (for example, not Dell, not Ideapads, nothing from a "budget" line), the Macbooks still cost twice as much to get similar specs and features. (Again, I'm comparing laptops to laptops, not ultra-portables.)
What an ignorant comment. Like typical spec-whores, you don't look at the quality of the product, just the immediate specs. For example, Apple's MacBooks/Pro don't throttle the CPU even at high workloads because they properly designed the chassis (using aluminium, an excellent thermal conductor) and cooling system to handle the heat. Virtually every competing laptop which is cheaper but uses a 45W Core i7 will throttle since the plastic chassis, can't dissipate the heat as well. Its one of the reasons Dell's XPS 15" has problems with capacitor whine.
Look at the price Microsoft sells its 13.3" Surface Book and then compare it to the 2016 15" MacBook Pro. On price, they're almost the same, but the MBP has double the processor (4-core 45W/6MB L3 vs 2-core 15W/4MB L3). Also, the MBP has 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports all directly connected to the CPU (which means you get the full 40Gb/s bandwidth unlike any other laptop with TB3 which goes through the PCH and thus suffers 'overhead').
What a jerk.
The Macbook Pro I used got hot enough to be uncomfortable, like standing next to a heater. I don't care how well it dissipates heat when it's being dissipated into my lap. Its PC replacement doesn't get hot. It has a powerful fan and huge vents, so if you think it's throttling, the burden of proof is on you. Since I have no interest in anything other than a traditional laptop, I'm not going to analyze the Microsoft Surface. As for the Thunderbolt, connections that exceed the speed of the connected media don't add value. Are you connecting RAM via Thunderbolt?
Your attitude doesn't make your answer more factual or relevant. I have certain requirements for specs. I have a budget. Does that make me a spec whore? Perhaps it looks that way to a person that uses their computer for web browsing and sending e-mails.
Haha. I wonder if people are starting to realize a high-spec laptop costs 3x as much from Apple as the competition? (Though I admit Apple only costs 2x as much as mid- to high-end laptops. (Note that "high-end" refers to build quality and hardware/drivers, irrespective of specs.))
Apple may realize they need to sweeten the deal to keep their customers. However, if you have a budget and a firm list of requirements, these applications are going to make little difference.
For three thousand years, everyone "knew" that the only places to play go pieces in the early game was on columns 3 and 4.
Then A.I. played on column 5 in the shoulder position on move 37 and it payed off enormously with control of the middle of the board later in the game... which it won.
This is a tangent, but you got me curious and I had to go find it. For anyone looking to see what Maxo-Texas means, the game can be viewed here (scroll down): https://gogameguru.com/alphago...
Great, more tipping. New York can soon have:
- more sexual discrimination
- more beauty discrimination
- more racial discrimination
- more age-based discrimination
- more obsequious in-your-business workers
Tipping sucks. It isn't statistically tied to anything good, particularly better service. To read/listen to more about the negative effects (and correlations) of tipping, the Freakonomics podcast has got you covered: http://freakonomics.com/podcas...