I dunno. I see this kind of comment a lot, but I always have mine set to -1 also, and I rarely see -1 comments that are really original and thought provoking. Some of them don't deserve to be -1... but they don't really deserve upvotes either. And usually, if I come back a couple hours later, the rare comment that was -1 and DOES deserve to be upvoted almost always has been. Maybe you would say that I'm just part of the group think, but I have some opinions that diverge significantly from a large portion of the Slashdot base, and I often don't agree with many of the things that do get to +5. I like to think that I'm pretty independent on that front, and I do my best to inform myself on topics that I care to read and comment about. I honestly feel like, in general, the moderation on Slashdot is pretty good. Even on heavily charged topics like politics, there is almost always at least a couple of opposing view points represented by highly modded posts. (Obviously it's not ALWAYS true, but most of the time, from what I've seen, it is.)
That issue could be solved by an outside auditing body. They would send in samples that are known to be matches or not matches, and search for a statistically significant deviation in outcomes. Of course, having an auditing body truly unassociated with the FBI/CIA/NSA/Local policing force would solve MOST issues with policing these days, and would ruin some of the nice little fiefdoms people have been spending the last few decades building... which is why it will never happen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Hobbit shot at 48fps? Also, one of the reasons it wasn't well received was because people complained that it didn't feel 'cinematic,' or that it reminded them of soap operas. The ironic thing here is that the reason people thought that is that many day time tv shows ARE shot at a higher fps than the cinema standard 24. It is not arguable that the higher frame rate provides a more clear picture, and, honestly, I see this going the way of the vinyl... CDs are better in basically every way, but some people complain that they don't have the 'warmth' of vinyl, or something. They mean the same thing that the people who were complaining about the high frame rate Hobbit did though: It just isn't the same when you take out the flaws introduced by a demonstrably inferior method. Of course, I have been wrong before... but I personally thought the high fps showing of the Hobbit was FAR better than the normal 24 fps version. And I'm convinced that once movie makers get used to it, and how unforgiving it can be, and once audiences see it at little more, they will want it also. I feel like it's waiting for its 'Avatar' moment... one super acclaimed film that uses it that makes others sit up and take notice. (Sadly, the flaws in the perception of the Hobbit seem to have set that back a bit.)
There is quite a difference between a fetish as the internet defines it and a fetish as it is described in the DSM. In the most basic terms, if you can get off without the help of your 'fetish' then it is almost certainly not a fetish as defined by the DSM.
Speaking as someone who has had a lot of interactions with trans people... there are not many of them that would argue with you. A few, maybe... but most don't want it any more than a 'regular' person would. My favorite quote from someone on the topic is "I may be crazy, but I'm not insane. I don't want to go through this any more than people who are against trans people want me to go through it... but it's a hell of a lot better doing this than being dead." Note that the last part was that persons personal preference. In the case of many trans people, at least at some point in their life, this is not true. (More than 40% of trans people attempt suicide at some point in their lives.) But as the matter stands now, and (as ausekilis points out) for the foreseeable future, that is sadly the ONLY effective way to treat all but the least severe forms of GID. (Just therapy can help in some cases, but in most just therapy is not enough.)
You think companies will just fall in line? I feel like many of them would simply pick up shop and leave the US. There are plenty other business friendly countries around the world, and these businesses know that such a backdoor would be a death knell for much of their domestic business, let alone their international business. You see how much damage just rumors that such a backdoor might possibly exist maybe, probably not but just maybe, has done to the international standing of many of these companies. The big boys understand that they depend on this international business to really rake in the profits, and they know that certain things would destroy them. This is one of those things, and if you think they would go down without a fight, then you're sorely mistaken.
If you don't understand the difference between trying to force everyone else to follow your own religious beliefs, and trying to stop people from discriminating against others (usually, gasp, based on trying to force your own religious beliefs on them!), then you're an idiot. I suspect you're a troll, but I see this so much that I think it's worth feeding the troll this once.
The multiprocess option was introduced a while ago. I tried it for about an hour, but any time I had more than about 5 threads open, it would hang the computer, and I couldn't do anything. This could be because I was on a relatively underpowered laptop, but... I am just going to stay away from it till it's more mature. It's honestly the only thing in Nightly that has made me look for a way to turn it off.
I don't see what this person could have to gain from this other than just being a dickhead. Heaven forbid someone be different from what your approved normal is. What a pathetic jerk.
I disagree. I think there is plenty of room in well functioning science for both heroes and authority. As long as there is a strongly held understanding and belief that such heroes and authorities are NOT infallible, and there is a strong drive to question, experiment, and improve on results, even for supposedly 'settled' topics. Scientific heroes and authorities must come with some level of malleability and understanding that our knowledge is basically in constant flux, and what we think is true today may be proven false tomorrow. But there are plenty of people that are at the very forefront of human knowledge, and in their areas, I would argue they certainly are authorities (at least at the moment). This doesn't mean we can't question them, just that yes, they have a body of experience and knowledge that should be influential in their field. In the same vein, we can praise and admire the work of great women and men, and seek to follow their examples, will simultaneously acknowledging that their work is not, CAN NOT, be perfect, and that they will make mistakes. They can still be heroes while being imperfect. Hell, from a mythological standpoint, MOST heroes have major, glaring flaws. But they are still heroes, admired and upheld for their good works. To be honest, I feel like this understanding of authority and heroes in science is more useful than the outright denial of their existence in the first place, as acknowledging that you can do flawed work, but still be great, is an excellent lesson for any scientist to learn.
I just interviewed with one of the largest healthcare focused tech companies in the US, Epic Systems. On of the more interesting things I learned while I was there was that they use InterSystems Caché, a non-relational system that's built on b-trees instead of tables. The main draw of this system is the speed at which they are able to operate, which is one of the big things they've built their reputation on. They claimed while I was there that roughly 47-49% of Americans are covered by Epic's software at some point. Now, obviously that's not just records stored in databases they designed, implemented, and support, but, especially considering that Epic targets medium to large healthcare companies, with very little involvement with smaller outfits, and the fact that they do their best not to parcel out their software, but to sell integrated top to bottom systems... well, they seem to not only be doing fine without a relational system, but thriving. I don't work for them, so I can't say any more than that since I don't have experience, but I just thought it might be of interest in relation to the relational/non-relational debate in this thread.
Honestly, I don't think is was bought. Wood burning stoves are a huge, huge source of dangerous particulate pollutions in many states in the north, where there is not the option to use gas, and oil is too expensive for many families. Fairbanks, AK, a community of about 100,000k people, has some of the worst particulate pollution in the developed world because of the amount of woodburning that goes on there during the winter.
I have lived in Fairbanks, Alaska, which has roughly 100,000 people in and around it, and is basically isolated other than that. During the winter, particulate pollution is insanely bad, and even worse when you consider how small the city is. This is due, mainly, to the amount of wood burning stoves that are used to heat houses. Now, it's exacerbated by the valley that the town is in and the extreme cold, but most of it's terribleness comes from the wood burning in the area. After seeing that, I want to support stronger regulations or even bans on wood burning. On the other hand, many of the people in Fairbanks that burn wood do so because it's the cheapest method they can use to heat their houses, and they can't afford other methods (natural gas is not available in Fairbanks for heating, or at least not cheaply). I don't know what they're supposed to do if these regulations increase the cost associated with wood burning very much... not heating your house when it's -50 out is just not an option.
Actually, if you follow international news at all, there has been a strong Conservative/Tory assault on the NHS for several years now. The assault comes in the form of privatization and the introduction of the 'free' market to the health care ecosystem. This system, if anything, is attempting to emulate the system put in place with the ACA, and the right in the UK has made it clear that they would like do what the right in America has been arguing for this whole time in terms of health care. Would the Dems have desired to emulate the original NHS, prior to its evisceration? Yes. Now? Not so much. Here's a bit of light reading on the topic, which is anything but hard to find. (Yes, they do tend to be from more leftwing sources, however, they have good information on what has been done to the NHS recently.) http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11935 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/farewell-to-the-nhs-19482013-a-dear-and-trusted-friend-finally-murdered-by-tory-ideologues-8555503.html http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=676:people-will-die-the-end-of-the-nhs-part-1-the-corporate-assault-&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69
Unvaccinated persons WERE rare. The Wakefield paper and the bullshit it has produced has changed that significantly. We are actually seeing the results of that in the outbreaks of measles and mumps in the US and the UK, because of the breakdown in herd immunity in certain areas, due entirely to the anti-vaccine movement. We are talking about serious diseases, that have serious, life long consequences, that were all but eradicated until the anti-vac movement sprang up. Here's a story from the WSJ, not exactly known as a publication that indorses government intervention. They don't here, either... but it's pretty clear that they don't hold the hard line on this issue that they generally do. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323300004578555453881252798.html