What's your rationale for that, snowflake?
What's your rationale for that, snowflake?
Yes. But we need to be aware that man is not the only source of antibiotics. They naturally occur. We get a good lot of them from plants and bacteria, starting of course with penicilin which we got from mold, and which was already present on salted food and damp environments. What we did was to make antibiotics present in organisms other than their natural sources.
There is no reason to teach every kid to code, any more than we should teach every kid to pilot a ship or practice law.
they'll censor whatever the fuck they want to.
Dude, WTF? Wake up.
I'd say FB and Twitter curbing hate-propaganda is actually the lesser evil. People who are dumb enough to post such stuff on FB are probably best kept from doing serious harm. To others *and* themselves.
The Andromeda Strain was published in 1969.
The United States has some disease reporting, it started at least 75 years ago before the antibiotic bubble. This CDC Report summarizes the present state of disease reporting, in two pages. We need higher standards of reporting and legal penalties for failure to report.
Capitalism as we know it needs scarcity to function. What CEOs are saying when they say this is basically capitalism as we know it has come to an end. As soon as robots drive us around and build and sow and harvest everything we need, we're moving into a post-scarcity economy with solid utopia potential.
Us sitting at our keyboards and posting on slashdot are basically there already. What needs to happen is for the rest of humanity to follow.
But the general premise is true: Technology development is a logarithmic curve that's pointing up. Unless something goes really wrong the post-scarcity economy will continue on its way into society.
In Germany we have "Voting Districts" which all have the same amount of registered voters, They determine who get's into the Bundestag, There is one direct mandate and one federal mandate. Direct candidates can get in if they are elected by the majority of voters of their district. There are a few prominent examples of this happening.
The German system is a little complicated and perhaps bloated - our Bundestag is 600+ people and could lose a hundred or so without hurtung anyone - but the key issue is this one: Federal elections are federal and are counted at federal scale. State elections are counted at state level with representatives of each state forming the "Bundesrat", the counter-balance for the "Bundestag". That way there is a nice balance of power. Gridlock is less in Germany, because any party can join the fray (A party needs 5000 signatures to be able to found itself). That way we have coalitions and a good balance of power. At the same time Germany has a 5% hurdle parties need to take in order to be able to join the Bundestag, which prevents excess fragmentation and a chaos we had back in the Weimar Republik, pre-Third-Reich.
A good example for a flexible balance of power is the "big coalition" with Angela Merkel as Chancellor. Because the larger "Peoples Parties" SPD and CDU lost voters in the last 3 decades, they are forced to work together and keep an eye out for protest movements and Germanys equivalent of alternative conservatives such as the AFD. The Germany federation works surpsiingly well and also is quite stable.
All in all I think the Germany system has some very neat democratic mechanisms that the US should really try out.
My first order would be: Federal elections are federal, no intermediate 'state' level election.
I know from personal sources what US intelligence black-ops and their propaganda moves are capable of and have pulled of in the past to manipulate the public, so I'd say it's pretty likely.
Then again, that doesn't make Mr. Putin a nice guy or his regime an oderly one. It's just that the public US debate gives the Russians to much power and their own system to much credibility IMHO.
Purism is a relatively new company that builds Linux-centric hardware with an emphasis on open hardware. They have a small but nice lineup.
As far as modern Linux laptops go, I'd suspect you can't do any better.
The answer to this question is quite obvious to me: MakerBot is to Matter Compiling (see "The Diamond Age" from Neal Stephenson) what the C64 is to the Smartphones we carry around with uns today, that resemble some distant spacey science-fition vision of a 19981 Cray 2 supercomputer for your pocket and that cost roughly a days salary of a regular worker today in 2016.
MakerBot marks the beginning of a revolution, not the revolution itself.
Like Commodore is basically just some brandname used on some products no one buys today, it marks for many of use the beginning of commodity computing. We knew what it meant back then, but very very few people outside of the micro computer faszination could even dream about the high-res touchscreens and flat, light, sturdy, long-running and dirt cheap supercomputers we have today.
MakerBot could very well be long dead when, in 25 years or so, when 3D printing a device is better and cheaper than mass-production today and is as common as smartphones are today. It's the way technological developmennt happens.
My 2 cents.
Eich resigned because of external pressure on the Mozilla organization. I hear that one of the lobbying activities against him was when the dating site "OK Cupid" started informing Firefox users who accessed the site of Eich's activities and that they should download a browser made by people who don't nominate someone with gender discrimination issues to be their CEO. At the time, 8% of OK Cupid customers were there to arrange same-gender meetings.
They felt he was the public face of the company.
Russ Nelson published a piece on what he theorized was the economic motivation of Blacks to be lazy, and was booted off of the Open Source Initiative board. He wasn't thinking about how it would be perceived. A modified version of the piece is still online, but not the version that got him in trouble. In general, executives are seen as the public faces of their organizations even in the case of Nelson, who was not the chairman of the board, but was simply a member of the executive board. In Nelson's case, it wasn't that he made publicity appearances and press releases, it was that he was one of the people with the power to direct the company (and thus a more real face of the company than soneone who just does PR), and folks did not trust that someone who wrote what he did would behave as they would like in that position.
Playboy departed the nude photo market due to the vast and unending supply of photos and video of all manner of naked people doing sexual things which one can access via the Internet.
However, one can make a case that a good deal of the past content of Playboy was about objectifying women and to some extent the publication still is about that.
It was a dumb decision. Several people just weren't thinking. They're embarrassed now. They learned, and won't do it again.
It was only 1967 when the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case. Preventing blacks and whites from marrying, as the State of Virginia (and many others) did with laws on its books until it was forced to remove them in 1967, is an issue of racism, nothing else. One doesn't have to be thin skinned to be disgusted by racism.
Why should I feel any different about gender discrminiation? Texas had a law on the book making homosexual relations illegal in 1998, and two men were arrested for it and similarly to Loving, helped to strike it down in the courts. Marriage discrimination is yet another legal wall erected by the prejudiced. Doesn't take a thin skin at all to oppose it and its supporters.
Because you are an end-user and not an investor in these companies, you might actually think the public face of the companies is a logo or a trademark rather than a human being. Perhaps you think the public face of McDonalds is Ronald McDonald! Or that Sprint's used to be that actor who portrayed a technician. But this naiveté is not shared by the people who are the target audience for the public face that the CEO's appearances and quotations produce. AMD has people to handle the guy who once plugged one of their CPUs into a motherboard. The public face nurtured by the CEO is reserved for investors and business relationships, government, and corporate citizenship. These are all areas in which a decision made outside of the company can have great impact on the company. And so, if you go on the company site, you will see the CEO quoted in the press releases related to those items. At trade shows, you will see these CEOs as keynotes. I am heading for CES in January, where many CEOs you've never heard of who run large tech companies will be speaking, and there will be full halls of their eager target audiences.
Don't you think it might be self-centered to assume someone's not the public face of the company because you don't know who they are?
Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay