Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze
A test is just providing some objective information about something.
What you do with that is your business.
The Bechdel test was presumably invented to identify movies that fail the Bechdel test as deficient, problematic, etc.
But the test can just as easily be interpreted the other way. Netflix might someday soon come up with a category called "Bechdel Failures" and learn that it is extremely popular with men.
I think it would be great if there was some kind of logo or something that indicated if a movie passed or failed the Bechdel test; feminists could look for passing films, and I could look for failing films.
Can you show me which quote of Trump's mentions race? I quickly scanned your link and did not come across any mention of any races.
I don't have any evidence of Trump naming or implying any race at any time with any of his various immigration comments.
His focus has been on
- stopping _illegal_ immigration
- stopping the legal immigration of people that are at an increased risk of becoming terrorists
- reducing immigration that appears to have a negative effect on American jobs
There is a tremendous amount of racial confirmation bias about Trump, in part because that's what the left always resorts to, and because he hasn't adopted SJW phrases and talking points.
Contrastingly, there is historical evidence of him breaking _down_ racial and other bigotry barriers in his personal and business life.
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton has observed that discussing any aspect of immigration in a negative way makes her more like Donald Trump -- a man whom she very often implies is pretty much the worst thing ever.
It's a bit interesting that when Mrs. Clinton talks negatively about immigration, she's described as empathetic for Americans.
Contrastingly, when Donald Trump talks about immigration, he's described as a racist.
I think people are wise to be suspicious of anyone running for public office. But, of Clinton, Johnson, and Trump, Trump is the only one that has ever said he wants to limit and reform immigration for the benefit of Americans who are seeking American jobs. He's also the one talking about punishing American companies who engage in behaviors that subvert American workers and jobs so replace them with foreign workers and jobs.
If you are upset with companies abusing immigration law to the detriment of American workers, and you wish someone would finally do something about it, Trump would seem like your candidate.
This election promises to be another "hold your nose" affair, but there do seem to be legitimate differences in what the candidates want to accomplish and how they want to do it.
From a security standpoint you shouldn't be using antivirus software for real-time scanning. These issues have been known for years and keep occurring ( https://www.blackhat.com/prese...
). Antivirus vendors have been screwing up too often - false positives (blacklisting OS files etc), being exploitable (like this), being unstable, using too much resources.
Real time AV scanning should only be used by people who are incompetent enough to screw up their own systems (or let malware do it) more often than a AV company would. If you know what you are doing you wouldn't be using real-time AV scanning. You'd only scan certain stuff using sacrificial machines and more as a precaution and additional layer of defence.
So when are we going to get this: https://threatpost.com/ibm-unv...
Shared key WPA2 means that anyone who knows the shared key can decrypt other people's traffic if they managed to sniff the 4-way handshake messages:
It's true using WiFi means you still have to trust the entity providing it, but that's the same with a wired network or using an ISP.
To those who say "use VPNs" I'd say:
1) Defense in depth
2) that's a different layer - just because you can workaround a broken layer doesn't mean the broken layer isn't broken. The fact is the layer already has encryption but it has a broken implementation which can be improved.
How does $2k USD strike you?
example in use:
It occurred to me that you could adapt the airframe and application from cruise missile (the blog post), to ultra-low cost, man-deployable SAM.
A 350mph SAM isn't going to go very high, or chase down aircraft that have flown past. It won't work like a big expensive fixed SAM installation.
The current US application of airpower is flying low, slow, over and over, in repeatable patterns, because total air superiority is assumed.
And so if you watch US airpower fly over your burnt-out city, and then you see them turning to make another pass, you pull out your low-buck SAM, get it fired up, and, when the aircraft has heading back towards you, you fire at it, head on, from a field or building rooftop or whatever.
A 350mph object coming straight at an aircraft that is used to assuming air space dominance, and which is giving off no radar emissions, is going to catch at least a few super-power aircraft off guard and take them down.
This only needs to succeed once or twice. That will cause a significant change in the use of theater air-power..
There has been very little air-to-air combat in a long time. The majority of combat has been developed super powers against 2nd or 3rd world states, or against entities that aren't even states at all.
The only fighter air power requirement is a few hours of work to make sure that there is total airspace superiority, and then every other attack/recon aircraft in the super-power's arsenal loiters over its targets unopposed.
The software & silicon revolution is going to throw a wrench in all of this very soon.
Suppose you are ISIS. You cannot build all the infrastructure to have an airbase with fighter jets and trained humans to operate and maintain them, etc, and even if you could, the super powers would just stroll by and put a crater in your runway.
So what you need is an assymetric response to air power.
In the Soviet/Afghan war, the US funneled stinger missiles and other man-launched AA and AT weapons to the jihadists, and they were able to cripple the Soviet war machine.
The folks in the middle east are already plenty good at making IEDs - they have the "warhead" part figured out.
What's to stop them from putting ArduoPlane brains inside of RC powered jets and putting IEDs on them, and then using optical seekers (e.g. no active emissions, so the big jets never know its coming), and then shooting down low flying aircraft of all types and configurations?
The per-unit cost for something like this would be under $10k per copy. The impact of shooting down just one super-powers aircraft would be tremendous. It would cause an operational re-think and might even change the balance of air-power in the theater.
The Superpowers are going to need to stop playing the manned-aircraft one-ups-man-ship game, and embrace low cost swarms.
For each ISIS fighter that launches a home-made SAM, the super-power will need to respond with a swarm of airbone hunter/killer drones... already nearby, on station.
I think battles between various super-powers competing 5th gen manned fighters are unlikely and will hopefully never happen. I desperately want to avoid a shooting war with Russia or China...
Actually what those webpages would want is your location, and they don't need GPS for that.
Have you ever seen a browser prompt asking you for permission to share your location? If you allow it, the browser will figure it out (often with the help of Google if it's Firefox/Chrome) and then send the location to the page.
In many populated areas all is needed is WiFi to get 50m accuracy of your location. If there's no WiFi, a guess will be made, sometimes the guess isn't far off, sometimes it is.
Check out an implementation here:
(allow the share location request if you are brave and willing to test it out). For best results use a laptop with WiFi enabled.
From internal testing, WiFi location can be quite accurate AND more importantly it often can work where GPS doesn't - e.g. inside a mall. Google presumably populates and updates their DB with the help of android phones (that have stuck to the default of "high accuracy") and their streetview vehicles.
Microsoft probably is doing a similar thing but they don't have quite as many phones out there.
Intelligence is definitely genetic and heritable, but many of those genes might not solely be for raw intelligence.
After all to do OK in many education systems (e.g. complete the course) you often have to be able to sit down for hours without causing problems for yourself or to others around you. And you often have to be able to handle authority well even if that authority is wrong
I'm pretty sure many of you know people who completed schooling and yet would do worse than a crow in solving some puzzles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What I find interesting is a crow has a brain the size of a walnut and seems more intelligent that animals with much larger brains. Brains cost a fair bit more to keep around than just fat, so why do many animals have much bigger brains despite being stupider and not having longer lifespans? Redundancy?
Huh but that Fairphone also has a fused display right? What's the difference between that and the LG's fused display stuff?
The LCD and cover glass are fused, simplifying removal, but significantly increasing the cost of replacement.
The fused display assembly will need to be replaced if the LCD or glass breaks, increasing costs.
So either the Fairphone should be downgraded to a 9/10 or the LG should be upgraded to a 9/10.
.... usually results in findings like this:
After viewing the link I must say that, while I understand the point you're trying to make, I think that there probably IS more than just a passing correlation between the number of people who drowned after falling out of fishing boats, and the marriage rate in Kentucky.
To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.