With all that's being said about the NSA, and how we should add self-restraint, with all that the government is admitting about the current state of the NSA being bad, why not?
If it's that clear that Snowden did the right thing, why not pardon him? I feel that not pardoning Snowden is roughly equivalent to making a statement that people should be in the dark about the government's spying programs, and that the government should be free to spy on its people, unchecked.
I'm not sure if I am making a mistake, but I couldn't use the command listed in order to clone the repository. I'm using windows, with git installed, and I received the error: "Permission Denied: publickey"
I was able to get everything by looking you up on github and using the url of the repository.
Edit: Also, you might mention the repository earlier, because it's rather large and I've had to break from the book while it downloads.
Why not link them the other way? The article claims that individuals who are stronger physically will try to claim socio-political highground, but it seems much more realistic to me to observe this data and say that people who aren't as competitive or interested in gaining from others don't have the bent to exercise their biceps.
A better experiment for this hypothesis would be to take these original subjects and have some of them adopt an exercise system and others to abandon one. Then test if ideologies actually change as a result of physical strength.
Role models exist for a reason, and that is that we can do our best to be like them. It's not like we're arbitrarily judging character just for the hell of it. I know that I would like a role model that could show how to be a good person and do well in life. The trouble is, exactly as it says in the article, people look up to Steve Jobs and act like dicks because he did the same as was successful. And that doesn't work. And those people will probably never see their dreams through because they have Mr. Jobs, or Thomas Edison, or whoever else as a role model. So it is very important.
The level of 'approximation' involved here would be like making a square that was .0001% too long on one side. You wouldn't be able to tell at all.
The page you listed also says: "There has been an industry trend towards sampling rates well beyond the basic requirements; 96 kHz and even 192 kHz are available.[1] This is in contrast with laboratory experiments, which have failed to show that ultrasonic frequencies are audible to human observers"
Exactly my point. Just because someone else is doing the work (or, in this case, something else) doesn't mean that the work isn't the first person's art. And yes, I suppose, anything can be technically art. But this is veritably the same kind of art we've already come to accept.
Renaissance artists didn't do much actual painting. They just sketched what they wanted, mixed colours, and had students do the rest. This is basically the same thing, only with abstract art. If this isn't art, then the renaissance didn't have any artists.
I rather did not, and for two reasons:
Firstly, the post that I was attached to that was offering the same joke, almost precisely, was getting very positive attention.
Secondly, after I added the footnote, the total score for the comment increased from -2 to +4, making it the second most karma-profitable post I have made, as far as I'm aware.
Not that I'm being karma obsessed. I just wanted to make sure that people realized that it was a joke, and the metric I have available seems to prove me right.
Erm, I seem to be getting a negative response. This is, I hope you are aware, a joke that carries on the joke of the post above it. I do not actually agree with the sentiments I have given, they were to be imagined with sarcasm.
Rather! Just think of it- we've already lost Christmas, April Fools, New Years, and probably a few others to the unstoppable force of PR departments. The nerve of these people! Just find any decent day of the year and pollute it by pretending to be real people with a sense of humour and personalities. I can imagine a future where they've turned every day into a holiday and spoiled the whole year acting like humans, when they should be doing the same day to day job they have to do for the rest of the time. It sickens me.
But the takeaway here will not be "this is something that Steve Jobs did that was nice," it will be "OH WOW STEVE JOBS WAS A SAINT."
And that, sir, is what we call the fundamental attribution error. But I feel it applies more to everyone than just Jobs. If you showcase a positive action, it'll be assumed as part of a personality. And I seriously doubt anyone would be spreading bad things about Steve Jobs, because he actually was very intelligent and all that lot. The only person I'm aware who was appreciated during life and hated afterwards is Edison, and that's only 100 years after the fact.
You can't patent atoms, but you can patent compounds made of those atoms, like a new plastic. Or, if those compounds are already open, you can patent products that combine those compounds into a new shape, like a new blender. You can't patent the human voice or melodies, but you can patent a song. You can't declare that because someone's. product uses raw materials that are patent-free, that their final product isn't really an invention. Every thing is built on some other platform, so that would remove patents entirely.
Though they do share a whole lot. It would be like making a phone rectangular with a touch screen and a home button. Obviously everything inside your phone is completely original, but because they look vaguely similar, you've violated your twin's copyright.
This is stupid and nobody likes it. Go back to your terrible life as a terrible person who nobody likes.
But in all seriousness, I think you do have to take the negative with the positive, so long as both are constructive. It'd be stupid to take something sexist and cast it aside and make jokes about it as if it doesn't matter. Because it does matter. The technical community is negative because it has certain requirements that are not met. The government is doing bad things, as are private corporations. We cannot ignore these things because they are negative. But I agree that we should find positives. The trick is that, in good discussion, positive and negative are unimportant. What matters is constructiveness.
Saying 'This is great!' is just as useless as saying 'This sucks!'. Positive conversation is fine, but it is not necessary in intelligent discussion, because not every topic is inherently positive.
Well, if they're totally equal, sans sugar, then the obvious reason to choose DuckDuckGo is for privacy's sake. No sense sending personal information to Google when DuckDuckGo will do it for free.
This is the first time I've seen this argument against linkbait headlines, and I happen to like it a lot. I've never actually considered headlines from a psychological perspective.
Actually, calorie for calorie is not a valid counter. Per wolfram alpha, you'd have to eat 4.0kg of broccoli per .41kg of steak (average steak size).
Apart from that, I would cede to your points about the b12 and iron, but if you want calories to sustain you, meat is definitively the most efficient way to go about it.
I disagree. There are a lot of nutrients (mostly protein) that, without meat, require us to rely heavily on nuts and beans. A dependency on those requires a large amount of additional effort for the consumer. Nut allergies are intensely common besides, having to depend your entire muscular structure on the number of beans you eat would be both very ineffective and would have a number of negative results.
Point being, meat is the most efficient way to get a lot of nutrients, and you can't declare that everyone can't eat it because you may someday discover that it's intelligent. The future is broad, we might find out that plants are actually the intelligent beings on this planet. Does that mean we should all starve ourselves now on the fear that that may happen in the future?
It's probably rude, but I think that the fact about the decreased morale is somewhat hilarious. Just picture the situation where you have a whole bunch of assembly line workers being ousted by pigeons. What would it feel like to know that a bird is better at your job than you? It's just absurd.
So the problem is that sorting by upvotes alone creates a list of comments where the first comments to the pack get the most reads, and therefore the most upvotes, such that the first comment will have 200+ upvotes if it is posted first, but may never even see the light of day if it's added later, once a majority of the votes have already been cast.
The solution is to sort instead by (upvotes/total views). That way, the comment at the top that 1000 people have viewed and 500 people have upvoted falls back behind one that 50 have viewed and that 40 have upvoted, a comment that typically would go unseen by the masses, but which is signficantly more likely to be upvoted (or enjoyed) by any given person.
But just because you, in one particular instance didn't see it, doesn't mean anything in the long term. Obviously with any statistical estimate, individual data points can fall far from the curve. But the idea is that, after enough time, enough views, and enough upvotes, the system slides into place.