> LTE sure as hell isn't 4G.

That was "kind of" true a few years ago, in the beginning of LTE, since the first revisions of the standard failed check one or two of the checkboxes of 4G requirements. But nowadays LTE delivers every requirement to be called a true 4G technology.

You don't get it. NO ONE is telling you to hire non-skilled or non-well-qualified professionals, there is nothing inherently less skilled/qualified about being a woman or a minority. Let me repeat: there is nothing inherently less skilled/qualified about being a woman or a minority.

What diversity programs do is not "judging people by their race and gender", but instead showing statistic significant biases in hiring processes where people are being excluded from consideration for irrelevant reasons not related to their skill or qualification. No one is demanding that you hire only women or only minorities, but that instead you stop excluding those from your hire pool.

And if you argue that you always hires the best person for the job, but your workforce greatly differ from the gender/ethnicity/etc distribution of your local population and/or graduates, then you are both bad at hiring and bad at statistics.

Very mature.

That is just plainly not true. First of all, paying tax is not "one's own money being taken" any more than paying back a loan, paying wages for an employee, paying the rent for the factory building, or paying back any other shareholder who contributed to the construction of that wealth in the first place. The money paid was not "one's own" to begin with, that share always rightfully belonged to the government as a special shareholder in the enterprise.

Second, receiving welfare is not receiving someone else's money (that would be charity, a completely different concept). By definition that money rightfully belongs to the welfare recipient. To make an insurance analogy: If I paid house insurance and then my house burned down, then I wouldn't be the "receipt of someone else's money", instead I would receive nothing more and nothing less than my own money, as in the money that now should rightfully belong to me according to the insurance contract and the current situation. It is true that part of the insurance money that I would receive came from other people's monthly payments, but that doesn't mean that it eternally belongs to them, instead they paid it into a contract that, in the current situation, grants me full undisputed legal and moral rights over that money. Welfare is akin to a society-level insurance pool, with claimants having all the legal and moral ownership to the money received.

Good catch, that particular work of art is extremely good to showcase the problems with their current stitching program. And, although examples of extremely egregious stitching error like the one you cited (on that weird number) are somewhat rare, more subtle errors can be found all around the piece. A quick look at the first few lines tell me that almost half of the words contain a subtle stitching error. For example here is a transcription of the beginning of the first line of text where I highlighted the letters containing stitching errors:

> Estava escrito. Dinheiro me vale, dinheiro me leva. Para casa. Deilde de Souza quero casar com você ...

So, although such an archival project is very interesting, it is far from fulfilling the promise of a substitute to the real thing when studying a work of art.

Here you go:

https://frames-per-second.apps...

That is a simple JS app that lets you compare frame rates controlling all aspects (I love how it lets you even configure motion blur settings). For me the best comparison (on my 60fps monitor) is 60fps vs 30 fps both without any motion blur, the quality difference is so blatant that I can't imagine like people still defend frame rates lower than 60fps.

Slashdot ate my "2"s. Apparently it doesn't support superscript or underscript characters.

Just a small correction: there is no "go back" when we talk about global warming, all the warming already done is here to stay.

This is not like the ozone layer crisis, when all we had to do was stop screwing up and the atmosphere started "healing" by itself, in this case all the CO is here to stay. In an analogy, the ozone layer crisis was akin to a polluted river, you stop polluting and it clean itself; while global warming is like polluting an endorheic lake, all the pollutants stay there forever unless you actively filter them out (which in the case of global warming's CO is beyond even sci-fi tech). All we can hope to accomplish is to decrease the pace of warming.

I don't get how this would work. This $20 fee would be triggered every time I take my SIM and insert in a new phone? So when my phone battery is dead and I pop my SIM onto my wife's phone just for a quick call I'll be charged $20?

Actually that happens much more often on the right, at least in the USA, where everyone a tiny bit less rightist is incorrectly labeled a leftist.

The true right-left axis is closely tied to the ownership of the means of production (ownership including decision-making and wealth extracting). Along this axis the right being ownership by few (oligarchy), or ownership by the financial capital (capitalism), while left being ownership by all the people (comunism) or ownership by the labour capital (socialism). So, a center would be something like the German system, a capitalist society where employees have some seats in the board of directors of their own companies (capitalist with a sprinkle of socialist).

By all his feats, Obama is a neoliberal (just like the majority of the USA Democratic party), a ideology that is well established to be a right-wing ideology. Yet right-wingers love to say that he is leftist. That is a form of propaganda used to shift the axis further to the right, after all, if you call Obama a leftist, then the "center" will be somewhere between the right and the right, and consequently even the most mild, obvious, and coherent leftist idea will be considered an extremist absurd.

Copyright was never meant to be used as a tool for censoring content, on the contrary, it was meant to promote the arts. So copyright should have an exception for works not made available. If the copyright holder decides to withdraw a work, then it would be automatically free for anyone else to copy and distribute. After all copyright is a monopoly, but if the holder decides to not peruse that monopoly then it should be open for anyone else who my want to publish it. Under said directive we would have:

1. Old books that are out of print because the original publisher decided they are not worth it would be free to be printed by any publisher.
2. Old software and games (abandomware) would be automatically free to copy by anyone.
3 Copyright wouldn't be used for censorship. Unfortunately nowadays we have many cases where the copyright holder, for various reasons, uses its monopoly do censor. That wouldn't be an option anymore.
4. And the relevant to the current discussion: Works that are published somewhere else, but not published/available on country A would automatically be free on country A. After all citizens of a country shouldn't be punished if the publisher doesn't want to make the work available there.

You are swinging at windmills here, there is no "blow" to the social justice movement. If anything it is a validation that the prefix "cis-" is not a loaded word that should be fought, but a valid technical term with no more "liberal bias" then any other Latin prefix. Many fields of human knowledge use that prefix in many contexts, always adhering to the original Latin meaning, and none of those uses is a "co-opted by some academic leftist tyrants", instead it is just normal academics practice of using the adequate Latin prefix whenever a concept in question don't already have a word for it. Here are some examples of common uses of the prefix "cis-" in question:

- Chemistry using it to specify functional group orientation in relation to other functional group inside a molecule (cis-fats),
- Social sciences using it to specify gender orientation in relation to genitalia (cis-gender),
- Astronomy using it to specify orientation in space in relation to the Earth's moon (cis-lunar).

Well, the math that we all were taught failed the vast majority of our generation. With only a few students understanding basic math when graduating school (most Slashdot readers probably being in this group), and the others, the vast majority being otherwise completely math illiterate. And guess what, those few who managed to learn math actually devised different mental methods and tools to do the job whenever the taught method failed them, and that is how they managed to succeed even thou the official method was crap. So the new initiative is just to try and teach every to kid the tools and methods that the few of our generation actually used.

Let me try and give and example to show why you are wrong: Imagine your kid where learning multiplication methods and had a homework with the simple multiplication 345*10, and he answered all the assignment by doing repetitive sums (345+345+345+345+345+345+345+345+345+345=3450). In this case wouldn't you agree with the teacher to fail the student's assignment? After all, the objective of the assignment is not to give the result to the teacher, the teacher already knows the answer, instead the objective is to practice a method, a tool, that will be useful later on. If we allow that student to pass like that, how do you think he would fare later when he had bigger multiplications like 2345*2345?

That is the problem with the kind of math teaching that we had when we where kids. They would teach inefficient methods to everyone, then the few students with "predisposition to math" (I imagine a large part of Slashdot readers where in that group) would devise their own more efficient mental methods to complement the taught method. Then later, the students without "predisposition to math" would fall behind more and more at each step, with each new teaching piling up on top of the inefficient foundations. So I support this new initiative of trying to teach to every kid all the tools that I (like many Slashdoters) had to devise by myself when I was kid; so hopefully this new generation don't become as math illiterate as the vast majority of mine.

Calling Uber a "taxi" service is just as wrong as calling it "ridesharing" (OK, maybe a little less wrong, but still very wrong). The more correct term for Uber would be a "chauffeur" service.