194 karma · joined November 13, 2017
How stupid is that? Privacy at the expense of security?
Indeed the abundance of predators, notably martens and foxes, in some areas has been linked with a decrease in infected ticks. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1859/2017...
At least on *nix, even when you need a reboot, once is enough.
Mainly because speech isn't regulated online, and there's little to no repercussions when going beyond what's acceptable in "real life". Online discourse has become a way to show what's behind the facade that many feel forced to adopt when talking face to face. Basically there's less hypocrisy online, at least for a vocal minority, for good or bad.
> Why does so much research show that actual, in-person interactions with people of other backgrounds reduces the strength of racist stereotypes in people's minds?
That's the Intergroup Contact Theory. But I still don't see why it's useful to explain an increase in depression in young people. The primary "tribe" of a kid is close family, anyone else beyond is an outsider: they have different values and perspectives; even your neighbour may be of a different religion, another race, another economical class, etc... Meeting this otherness is simply life and unavoidable. Online social life just displays this otherness in a harsher light, the extremes are more apparent.
Or are you proposing that we should lock up kids in their house for fear of their minds not being able to cope with what's outside? I'd argue that this overprotective mindset might actually be one of the reasons kids are more prone to depression these days, similar to how allergies are more prominent because we are less exposed to normal pathogens in early childhood. Kids falling back on online activities may be merely a side-effect of this, not the real cause of their anxiety/depression.
You should check some of the talks, and lectures by Robert Sapolsky (an atheist), who advances this in several of them.
Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI
Religion Is Nature's Antidepressant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldj11NEsc0
Are children also at risk when meeting with other kids of different religions? It could shake their own faith too, by the same logic.
Indeed. 4-5 secs to open GIMP on Linux here on HDD, and practically instant once cached. Maybe try and start with some command-line options. Useful ones in your case:
-d, —no-data
Do not load patterns, gradients, palettes, or brushes. Often useful in non-interactive situations where startup time is to be minimized.
-f, —no-fonts
Do not load any fonts. No text functionality will be available if this option is used.
-s, —no-splash
Do not show the splash screen.
Googlers must ask to use Windows because “Windows is harder because it has 'special' security problems so it requires high-level permission before someone can use it.” In addition, “Windows tools tend to be heavy and inflexible.”
http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-truth-about-goobuntu-google...
The rightly in your comment irks me. Isn't it a self-fulfilling prophecy? One's potential criminal behavior tends to depend, at least partly, on environment, and socio-economic factors. It makes sense that anyone facing difficulties in finding jobs, for things they supposedly have paid for, are indeed more likely to recidivate. It's a vicious circle.
XFCE has been already been mentioned. But Openbox, dwm, awesome, etc... all could fit.
Note that it's expected, and assumed, that the user can switch to these more conservative UIs if they prefer, even if the base distro defaults to only one.
How can a skillful JS developer make the site better for me when I want to avoid ANY extra features and distractions? My personal tastes tend to go not too far off this kind of design: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
If this hypothetical developer is really sharing my goals then he'll use the <noscript> tag, and I'll be happy enough with HTML/CSS.
For text-heavy sites, which are the ones I use the most, JS adds nothing I want: tracking? 3rd-party ads? lazy-loading? comments via disqus? sharing to social media? Thanks, but not for me.
For the very few domains I deem absolutely necessary, I can always whitelist them.
I guess this is the result of having so few children nowadays. But not so long ago, many people got a very real and practical first experience by helping in raising their siblings. And depending on how large the family was, I assure you it could prepare you very well.
But, even then it can be annoying. If I happen to press on the smart key on my remote, by mistake, the TV then takes ages to check that indeed there is no connection, with a large and unescapable message dialog.
Bad design decisions all around.
Plants respond to anesthetics, some can react to touch/electricity/heat with rapid movement(thigmonasty), they can sense when they are being damaged, some can even display short-term memory.
But do they feel pain? They have no pain receptors. They have no nervous system. They can feel pressure/vibrations, and even respond to it, but that's it.
My take on it is that non-tech savvy people are now largely desensitized to any vulnerability discovery, as long as it hasn't been exploited in the wild. Computers have bugs? What's new?
Intel's PR, good or bad, doesn't matter that much.
I guess you mean some kind of computer/AI? Then who rules (programs) the AI, rules the world. This is definitely no anarchy. Ceding authority to a machine only serves to hide the real rulers.
Check This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, for a perspective on what kind of world this could lead to.
When I think about failed predictions, the flying car almost immediately comes to mind. You could see them regularly on 50s-60s pop-science and SF magazines covers.
Back then there was the idea that flying machines would soon become affordable on an individual level, and that most people would want to buy their own helicopter or small plane. Quite a few SF novels assumed it was a definite possibility, with the inevitable abandon of cities.
And it made a lot of sense at the time. I remember reading City by Clifford Simak as a kid, which is based on this premise, and thinking that it would soon come. The concept was very tempting.
To break this equation, you need a new paradigm, which often comes from outsiders adding their perspective. And open source is a great way to do this.
Modern microwave ovens have all adopted impractical and quirky new UIs, when the old concept of knobs was simple and worked fairly well in the first place.
But isn't this also applicable to the other side? As in, black hats have less incentives to research vulnerabilities in less popular products (security through minority). I'm not certain how this balances out.
> when this "aliveness" is so far off what they are genetically programmed to enjoy as a normal life.
I assume, just like humans, other animals can adapt and even enjoy a life partly controlled and radically different from natural conditions.
I think the basis should be: are they better off than in the wild? In terms of pain, comfort and stress. And I'd argue that we can give them a better life. But, especially with factory farming, we often don't.
In your specific example of aliens raising humans. If aliens let them live in decent conditions, with some added benefits: say diseases, illnesses and poverty completely eradicated, and wars forbidden. But with the caveat that aliens do decide when you die. (Somewhat similar to Logan's run...). I think many may see it as better than our current life.