Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
When a seven year old child in response to the question "What do you want to be when you grow up", answers in all seriousness and without a hit of shame or wrongdoing "a burglar" you will understand that the child is unlikely to make good life choices. I would add that even if you attain great wealth breaking out of the destructive lifestyle formed when growing up is very hard. This is a famous alumni of the primary school in question.
In short if your upbringing does not equip you to make good choices you have little chance of actually making the good choices if life presents them.
It is more likely to be down to the input from the parents, or in the case of poverty lack of input. The basics are that poor parents are on average less well educated and don't have either the inclination or knowledge to give their children quality input especially in early years.
The is also a growing problem with the children of wealthy/educated parents who are too busy with their jobs to give their children the quality input they need to thrive.
Diet has very little or nothing to do with it. Any sensible early years teacher could tell you this in an instance. If you arrive at school knowing your letters, being able to count to 10, recognizing your name when written down, being able to hold a pencil properly etc. you have a massive head start in life and this can NEVER EVER be closed by anything the state can do in the educational system.
The reality is that the children of wealthier and/or better educated parents are more likely to turn up on their first day at school being able to do all those things. The cost of getting your child to be able to do these things is minimal and "poverty" in the western world is not a barrier to achieving it either.
Even when we get to school the attitude that the parents hold to the value of an education and behaviour of their children has a huge impact on the how well a child will perform throughout their school career.
Poverty is a symptom of low educational achievement on average and it breads low educational achievement on average. How you break the circle is difficult to know, but throwing money on diet and/or the educational system won't work and does not work.
Kanzius died, Steven Curley set up the aforementioned parallel company that bought all the rights and patents to the technology before shuttering the John Kanzius Foundation. So far, so very uncool.
Last year, just as the company started aproaching the FDA about clinical trials, Dr Curley got blasted with lawsuits accusing him of loading his shortly-to-be ex-wife's computer with spyware.
Two weeks ago, there was to be a major announcement "within two weeks". Shortly after, the company dropped off the Internet and Dr Curley dropped off the face of the planet.
Robert Zavala is the only name mentioned that could be a fit for the company's DNS record owner. The company does not appear to have any employees other than Dr Curley, making it very unlikely he could have ever run a complex engineering project well enough to get to trial stage. His wife doubtless has a few scores to settle. Donors, some providing several millions, were getting frustrated — and as we know from McAfee, not all in IT are terribly sane. There are many people who might want the money and have no confidence any results were forthcoming.
So, what precisely was the device? Simple enough. Every molecule has an absorption line. It can absorb energy on any other frequency. A technique widely exploited in physics, chemistry and astronomy. People have looked into various ways of using it in medicine for a long time.
The idea was to inject patients with nanoparticles on an absorption line well clear of anything the human body cares about. These particles would be preferentially picked up by cancer cells because they're greedy. Once that's done, you blast the body at the specified frequency. The cancer cells are charbroiled and healthy cells remain intact.
It's an idea that's so obvious I was posting about it here and elsewhere in 1998. The difference is, they had a prototype that seemed to work.
But now there is nothing but the sound of Silence, a suspect list of thousands and a list of things they could be suspected of stretching off to infinity. Most likely, there's a doctor sipping champaign on some island with no extradition treaty. Or a future next-door neighbour to Hans Reiser. Regardless, this will set back cancer research. Money is limited and so is trust. It was, in effect, crowdsource funded and that, too, will feel a blow if theft was involved.
Or it could just be the usual absent-minded scientist discovering he hasn't the skills or awesomeness needed, but has got too much pride to admit it, as has happened in so many science fraud cases."
Link to Original Source
Maybe, some day, Congress will actually fix some of the real fucking problems we have, with having a pseudo, tech. intergrated Government. And maybe, Hell will actually freeze over!
I hear Hell already froze over - several decades ago.
It was a particularly cold snap during winter in Michigan, with sub-zero (farenheit) temperatures. The expanding ice blew out a small (millpond-ish) dam. The water under the ice rushed down the river and overflowed it, pouring down the main street of the little village of Hell, Michigan. It was several inches deep when it slowed enough that the extreme cold froze it solid.
Since then a lot of the stuff that was waiting for Hell to freeze over has been happeng. That explains the last several decades nicely, eh? B-)
WhatsApp just rolled out end to end encryption for their service as well
Right. And exactly how is WhatsApp supposed to monetize you and data-mine you if your messages are encrypted? I'm of the opinion that this is a marketing gimmick with Whatsapp sitting as the man in the middle.
Just partially kidding...
Insightful but where is your source. Not that I am disputing your version of events, it is just there is little actual evidence to what precipitated the incident. All I have seen is there was no hot food and Jeremy then assaulted the producer both verbally and physically.
Most of the claims aren't listed so it's hard to draw a conclusion.
And don't hold your breath waiting for them to be listed publicly, either.
If this is over trade secrets, the alleged trade secrets, if legitimate, will still be secret. So unless/until Facebook gets a judgement that the claims are bogus, the proceedings will be under seal.
Even if they ARE bogus it may not be in Facebook's interest to publish them, either. They might be little-known enough that exposing them to their competition might make the competitive environent tougher for Facebook.
So don't be surprised if the "secrets" and the details of the verdict or settlement remain under wraps.
That's the nice thing about lists. The government says you're on it, and that's that. No proof required. No means to defend yourself or prove your innocence. Nope, you're on the list, and now we're going to bully everyone and cut you out of all the conveniences of modern life. Those who don't co-operate, well, you wouldn't want to be "aiding a terrorist" now would you?
The "free" world has gone insane, and I despair when I see a whole new generation growing up that doesn't seem to have a problem at all with this modus operandi.
... in the last election the powers of greed tried to elect someone who was neither conservative nor liberal but really a direct representative of the 1%. They spent 3 to 4 times as much money, made people stand in 4 hour lines to vote, maximally gerrymandered every district they could...
While your underlying perception is largely correct, your supporting argiments are not. You need to understand the system more if you want to be convincing,
Of particular note is bringing up gerrymandering. In virtually all the states the electoral college votes are chosen in a statewide, popular-vote, winner-take-all contest. Gerrymandering doesn't affect this at all. (Which is good for the Republicans, as the Democrats have been far more effective at it.)
As for spending: With the support of labor unions and the media empires, the Democrats get massive, uncounted, campaign subsidies, while the Republicans mostly have to pay for their own propaganda directly..
The big exception to that is Fox News: But IMHO they, and the party establishment, are what lost for the Rs the last time around. Fox was blatantly pure Neocon (the faction of Romney, the R establishment, and the 1%ers,) The primaries are where the parties' candidates are chosen. Fox's hilariously biased reporting and the R establishments massive (and often violent) cheating, alienated the supporters of Ron Paul, to the point that they would not support him - virtually to a man - and also alienated many Rs who observed this circus. Romney lost five states by margins smaller than the number of people who voted for Paul in primaries and caucuses. Had they not done this, Romney might still have won the nomination honestly, and received eJ.nough votes to swing those states.
So, yes, their money didn't buy them the election. But IMHO what really lost it was intra-party behavior so corrupt that major factions of the party's voters decided they could not be allowed to have control of the government's levers of power - even if the alternative was an exceptionally effective, avowedly-Communist, Chicago-Machine politician