Comment Redolent of the past. (Score 1) 192
Sounds like it's high time for a Microsoft "exclusivity" bribe again.
Sounds like it's high time for a Microsoft "exclusivity" bribe again.
What in the nine hells is this whining? It's a god damn app on a cell phone!
You want to "prevent the havoc"? Turn the damn app off! The world doesn't owe your delicate sensibilities a damn thing, and not every app must censor that which you may not want to hear.
Is this some kind of joke? Is it an Onion piece? Is it one of those far-far-far-left progressive campaigns again, where everything must be acceptable to everyone, or be literally Hitler and threatened off campus? I cannot make any sense of the accusations here, as it seems to be a completely voluntary situation.
>>"But evolution seems to have mainly selected biomolecules that are quantum critical, implying that that this property must confer some evolutionary advantage. Exactly what this could be isn't yet clear but it must play an important role in the machinery of life and its origin."
A scientist should understand evolution sufficiently well to not use arguments like this.
Why are we carbon based and not silica based? Either works just fine. Evolution doesn't pick the "best" option, it picks a "functional" option. After something has proven to function, evolution stops caring (until it no longer functions). Why iron and not copper in our blood? Either works fine.
Why quantum critical "bio"molecules? Because they work. There is NO other criteria. They could be better than the alternative, they could be worse, they could be the same. But they work. That is all we can assert.
1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.
Sounds like a good idea, but how does that work when the internet is involved? Does Facebook count as everywhere? What about phone calls? Mail?
It's a tricky system to get right.
I don't know, is att a big owner of content, like time warner an their ilk? Maybe they are trying to deferentiate from the competition. Seems like a good strategy to me.
It looks like fast lanes and slow lanes to me, just from a different perspective. Of course, if I'm wrong, and they build a better protocol for torrent traffic, I'm all for it. Improvements are great, and necessary.
If the new tactic is to simply prioritise torrent traffic, then it's a fast lane. What's the difference between prioritising 9 types of traffic and throttling the 10th? None at all. This could just as well be used to throttle unwanted traffic (let's say WB starts prioritising everything *except* torrent traffic).
Much like an overly broad law, it's great when it's used to improve the things we care about, but it could just as easily be used for the opposite. And should this new *great* idea be used as an argument to curtail the net neutrality rules (let's allow fast lanes but not slow lanes instead of banning both types), then you can expect the opposite usecase to come about shortly.
The one thing I'm certain of is that AT&T will happily screw you over for a dime, and any consumer-friendly initiative from them should be scoured under the looking glass several times over for the devils signature.
Not sure if troll or srs...
Smoking is pretty close to the worst thing you can do if you wish to lead a long and pleasant life (including the endgame).
Smoking has an unwanted effect on almost every cancer probability (including cervical/breast cancer for you women), every bronco-, cardio-, aortic-, pharyngeal- (all kinds), and endocrine- disease available (to name *but a few*). If this wasn't enough, the damage caused is from the smoke, meaning that second hand smoke is just as bad (and therefor affecting those in your vicinity to some degree as well). As a result, it's expensive as bloody hell to society, leading to a *deficit* in high-quality medical care socialist countries. Oh, and the nicotine itself, separate from ingestion method, also causes sleeping problems, gastro-intestinal problems, and headaches. So enjoy that.
For the poor epidemiologists around, smoking is a major pain in the ass, because it's a confounder in almost every damn longitudinal cohort study ever, meaning more math, more matching, more controlling for additional factors, and more tables.
On the plus side:
There are only two benefits that I know; the calming effect of nicotine can be helpful in reducing point stress (often negated by the *increase* in stress that comes from nicotine abstinence), and the *possibly* mild protection it offers from late-onset Alzheimer's disease. I say possibly because the evidence of this protection is no consistent.
Now it's just getting sili
I don't think they do. And judging by the two kinds of of people that complain about the under-representation of women in tech...
The first person is doing absolutely nothing about it except throwing a patreon account around and begging for more money...
The second uses it as a PR campaign (without realizing that the outragists that care about the whole thing have no interest in tech)...
Not a single complainer decided to go into tech to improve the ratio. But you hear about it. From "journalists". From bloggers, vloggers, and podders. And high ups that don't do any of that stuff themselves, but have a chief of public relations.
How come the programmers aren't complaining? If this is such a problem, why is it only ever raised from the outside in the form of clickbait, PR, or justification for getting more money?
Great idea. Let's take all the enthusiastic, optimistic, and insightful CS students and throw them out the window, then try to coax and cajole the uninterested into replacing them. I don't see how this plan could possibly fail.
Seriously, guys?
What happened to merit? What happened to "the heart wants what the heart wants"? What happened to free choice?
Why must there be more girls in CS to the point of excluding those *actually* interested in the subject itself? And why is this situation not repeated in welding, or mining? Why don't you want women to make up their own minds on what they want to do?
I see lots of women every day that somehow managed to pick a career and/or interest without anyone having to invest lots of money into convincing or cajoling them, so I'm pretty sure it can be done.
A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.