Actually he was totally right, if you make a comment like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' or 'your brain's made of tunips' you better back it up. Otherwise it is a ridiculous comment, because there is plenty of well known evidence against it. I did not see any backing up of the comment, ergo it's a ridiculous claim. You are allowed to dismiss comments as being ridiculous, even in an honest debate.
Were you genuinely interested in honest debate, your dismissal of said claim would be based on the evidence presented. But that's the thing no evidence was presented. If I would try to start a debate at a left meeting about all conservatives being members of a pedophile satanist cult, they would dismiss the idea just as quick, same as a rightwing meeting (actually I probably get lynched).
I disagree. Matlab syntax gets in the way all the time. Take your A=BC example. This is probably the case where most of the debugging takes place simply because sometimes you mean piecewise multiplication and sometimes matrixmultiplication and no the dot is not a good solution because it's way too easy to overlook. The main cause of any sort of matlab problems is a dot which was accidentally forgotten or placed and that can take quite a while to debug especially if it's not your own code. Second thing, the stupid index counting, you have to mess with -1 or +1 all the time when dealing with loops and arrays, another great source of problems. The list could go on.
why is this rated informative? This guy clearly didn't do his research. Green laser pointers have been around for several years (>4) and although they usually are slightly larger than the cheap red pointers you can find almost anywhere now. They are nowhere close to "a couple of coke cans stood on end" but more pen size. The green laser pointers also are usually rated and 5mW which is considered eyesafe (the blink reflex of your eye will prevent you from obtaining damage). At 5mW it would _not_ be able to cut through a polystyrene cup. You would need several 100 mW and probably need to focus the beam as well. Colour of the light also does not matter significantly if it could cut through the cup and there are red lasers around with several 100mW power.
did you define you arrays and vectors as arrays? or were they just python lists? you don't really expect to start using a different programming language (because that is what it is) and not having to read some documentation? just because you know matlab doesn't mean it's intuitive. how about the stupid convention of starting vectors at element 1 and including the last element, or the . in front of operators to do a piecewise operation. you knew that without reading the documentation? ok you have already invested time into learning matlab, but don't discount something on the basis that it doesn't work like matlab.
hmm, so I'd have to learn some third hybrid syntax to use R in SAGE? The things that I notice most are (1) matlab style vectors (i.e. [1,2,3,4]) don't know what you mean here. do you mean matlab style numbering? v=[1 2 3] v(1) = 1 IMO that's different in sage as it uses python so it's python style vectors v = [1,2,3] v[1] = 2
I agree with you, I don't think there is a relationship between MPs and POWs. Still interesting discussion:).
BTW, I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.. if guarded by MP then POW. Logical equivalence gives: All POW are guarded by MP (1) Guarded by MP __________________ Therefore, they are POW
OUCH I just did the same mistake I complained about. Jeez I shouldn't post that late at night and especially not while doing two other things at the same time. (I'm a terrible multitasker)
It should be if POW then guarded by MP that is logically equivalent to All POWs are guarded by MPs. Guarded by MP is a necessary condition for being a POW. The way I wrote it it only is a sufficient condition. That really was exactly the thing I was complaining about. Thanks for pointing that out.
But that's what "MPs only guard POWs" means they don't do anything else apart from guarding MPs. I think the original poster thinks that POWs have to be guarded by MPs. I don't know if this is true, but I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of times POWs are just guarded by normal soldiers. So I don't think the argument was right, because I disagree with the premise. I just pointed out a logical fallacy in your argument.
A similar thing is quite common especially among politicians btw, in German it's called "Umkehrschluss", e.g. if we know that: "if laws are inadequate criminals get off the hook" a lot of politicians make "criminals get off the hook therefore the laws are inadequate and we need new ones" out of this. This argument is logically wrong, because if A then B does not imply if B then A. You see it in political discussions all the time and I really don't understand why the people don't point out this problem more often.
Oops sorry for the messed up linebreaks. Here's my argument again
If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war So: if guarded by MP then POW this is equivalent to: All POW are guarded by MP or there exists no POW which is not guarded by an MP but not to: MPs only guard POWs equivalent to: All MPs only guard a POW or There exists no MP which is doing something else except guard a POW
This is what the OP said.
If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war. If they're guarded by guards, then who can really say what they are?
They're guarded by MPs
Therefore (with a mysterious logical argument), they are POWs
Here's your fucked up logic with too many negatives, I even fixed it for you in easy to understand steps.
No POW is guarded by non-MP
POWs are not guarded by non-MP
Only MPs guard POWs Yay, no negatives.
Well actually I fucked up as well. No POW is guarded my non-MP is wrong as well. It should be No POW is not guarded by MP. So I really should think before writing as well.
And my best guess at his reasoning.
MPs only guard POWs
Go ahead and insert both into what the OP said.
If they're guarded by Military Police, only MPs guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. You don't make sense.
If they're guarded by Military Police, MPs only guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. I do, so shove off, and read "The Art of Deception" or something.
The first one does make sense and means something different to the second one. However it is too strong and not the correct translation of what the OP said either.
I try again.
If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war So: if guarded by MP then POW.
Logical equivalence gives:
All POW are guarded by MP
This is equivalent to:
there exists no POW which is not guarded by an MP
but not to:
MPs only guard POWs
equivalent to:
All MPs only guard a POW There exists no MP which is doing something else except guard a POW
which is essentially what you are saying.
BTW, how dare you try to pick apart someone's logic and say something like "No POW is guarded by non-MP"? Horrible form man. Well logical arguments do not necessarily sound elegant.
Military Police work on every single US military installation in the country, probably the world. They control traffic at gates, catch speeders, and write parking tickets just like their civilian counterparts. They also work in brigs watching over our own troops. Your assertion that Military Police only guard POWs is completely, and utterly wrong. 'Guard' in this case may mean US military personnel OTHER than strictly MPs.
Man you seriously need to work on your logic. The OP said (paraphrased) if guarded by MP -> POW now from that it does not follow: MP only guard POW. What does follow is: No POW is guarded by non-MP. So next time think before writing.
This made me think of Neil Stephensons Cryptonomicon. Wasn't there something were some guys had attached a huge magnet to their door-frame in case of a police raid, they'd just turn it on, and when the cops would carry the equipment out -> whooosh
Well subject says it all. Currently no insurance company in the world is willing to insure a nuclear plant against an accident. That should make us stop and think. Usually these guys are quite good at accessing risks and benefits. Just looking how many near misses have happened lately in Europe lately, and how many times power companies have ignored safety for profits makes me shiver. Secondly nuclear power is not cheap. It is very expensive actually. I really don't understand that all the free-market proponents who usually cry out foul about every subsidy don't mind massive subsidies for nuclear power. If only a small fraction of that money would have gone into research into renewable energy sources we'd already have better alternatives. Then there is the fuel. If you think oil is limited, well there is lots more around than uranium. Also about 70% of the worlds uranium resources are in the control of 2 countries Canada and Australia, compared to OPEC they'd have a lot easier time to agree to do price fixing, then what?! Recycling actually is not much of an option either. It's expensive, it produces weapon-grade plutonium, and it actually does not reduce the amount of nuclear waste. It only reduces the amount of highly radioactive waste, but in the course of recycling you produce _large_ amounts of low to mid radioactive waste, and you have to dispose of that for hundreds to thousands of years as well. The reason why big companies are so interested in nuclear power is, because it keeps their monopoly in place, it even increases the entry barrier into the market. That's why all the big power companies are so opposed to renewable energies, because they significantly lower the market entry barrier. Everybody can put solar panels onto their roof, a windturbine into their backyard or a small biofuel block power station into their basement (at least almost everybody). So communities could suddenly become totally independent of the large power corporations, that's their nightmare. For me that is already reason enough to oppose nuclear power. Why should my money go into subsidising large corporations?
Actually I really don't know why this ended up as a reply to you. I'm sure I replied to a totally different post. I didn't even read your post until I saw your reply. Weird!
Well, although I disagree with you, on some points your post definitely does not warrant the reply I wrote, as it really wasn't meant for you. As to reading "Das Kapital" I've tried reading the "Komunistische Manifest" and found it quite painful, my respect for actually making it through "Das Kapital". I actually found reading people like Kropotkin or Bakunin et al. quite a lot more interesting. Maybe try reading one of them, gives you quite a different insight into "Socialism". (Both of them were Anarchist and Socialist, so much for Socialism being anti-individualism like somebody else here said).
Again my apologies for replying like this to your post.
First you use Socialism and Communism as if they were the same thing. They are not. Socialism is an economic theory while communism has been argued as both a economic and political ideology.
The other poster was correct Socialism and National Socialism are completely opposite ideologies. Socialism wants collective ownership of productive means, National Socialism wanted and had private ownership. National Socialism despite its name was a capitalist ideology. That is the economic part of the Nazi ideology. In fact lots of owners of big corporations supported Hitler, because they envisioned high profits from his rule (and quite a few of the companies made huge profits during his rule).
Also Socialism is not anti-individual, it is just an economic theory. However a lot of the early proponents of Socialism in the 19th century were strong supporters of civil liberties and opponents of the strong totalitarian states at the time. A lot of our individual freedoms would not be where they are today without some socialists.
National Socialism "considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state."
How does this differ from Liberalism/Socialism? Or Hillary Clinton's famous "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Nice example of selective quoting. The rest of the quote reads: "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism."
Did you see the opposition to political liberalism, anti-communism an corporatism?
The militarism, anti-communism nationalism etc. fits very well with todays conservatives, "if you are not for us you are against us" anyone?
You also give the impression that Liberalism and Socialism are the same thing. Liberalism is a political theory while Socialism is an economical theory. That is a big difference. Socialism does not say anything about how people should live together, only how the distribution of productive means hould be organised in a society. Socialism in the strict sense means collective ownership of productive means. This still allows for private property just not in productive means./p?
Also note that the 3rd Reich was a capitalist society. The productive means were owned privately. The companies which made huge profits out of the war and the holocaust were all privately owned, e.g. IG Farben, Krupp, Thyssen, Siemens. In fact a lot of the owners of these companies supported Hitlers move to power. You really should read a history book, well any sort of book really.
Why is it that the US and Israel are the only two states one cannot criticise without being labelled "anti-american" or "anti-semitic"?
Note I haven't read the posts in the link you gave and some of them might be anti-semitic, but the tone of your post rings exactly of that rhetoric. If I am criticising Israel I am not criticising jews, what does the main religion of the state I'm criticising have to do with it anyway? I'm not accusing somebody who is criticising Iran as being anti-islamic. The funny thing is that this sort of argumentation is used by both conservatives and parts of the "left" or "progressives".
And your point is?! Not using hardlinks to directories might waste a few kB, big deal! The daemon might be an advantage, but I might not want a daemon wasting resources all the time.
Didn't Motorola have a similar phone. Forgot the name of it, but if I remember correctly it was build mainly with 2nd-3rd world countries as target audience. IIRC it had a monochrome OLED as a display.
Thanks for your answer, I really asked because I was curious. For me both dselect and apt-get are commandline utilities, that's why I didn't even think about that point of yours. As to the list of games, I kinda know what you mean, however I think that after just a little bit of getting used to apt-cache/apt-get etc. are a lot easier and more comfortable than even aptitude, even more so than dselect. I know that a lot of newbies are afraid of the commandline (I have converted my ex-girlfriend and my mother to linux so I really know). I just can't understand why. For a lot of tasks it is a lot more natural than a gui, as it's essentially language. Sure you got to remember some commands but for quite a few things that is just better than clicking through tons of menus etc. (let's not even speak about finding the option you want). I don't advertise the cli for everything, but for a lot of things it is actually faster and more natural, for example filemanagement.
Yeah that argument again. Every grown up generation says the following generation is stupid etc. you can find this argument dating back to Plato. If it really was true we would have degenerated back to the stone age by now.
Slashdot Mirror
fyre http://fyre.navi.cx/ is quite cool as well
I disagree. Matlab syntax gets in the way all the time. Take your A=BC example. This is probably the case where most of the debugging takes place simply because sometimes you mean piecewise multiplication and sometimes matrixmultiplication and no the dot is not a good solution because it's way too easy to overlook. The main cause of any sort of matlab problems is a dot which was accidentally forgotten or placed and that can take quite a while to debug especially if it's not your own code. Second thing, the stupid index counting, you have to mess with -1 or +1 all the time when dealing with loops and arrays, another great source of problems. The list could go on.
why is this rated informative? This guy clearly didn't do his research. Green laser pointers have been around for several years (>4) and although they usually are slightly larger than the cheap red pointers you can find almost anywhere now. They are nowhere close to "a couple of coke cans stood on end" but more pen size. The green laser pointers also are usually rated and 5mW which is considered eyesafe (the blink reflex of your eye will prevent you from obtaining damage). At 5mW it would _not_ be able to cut through a polystyrene cup. You would need several 100 mW and probably need to focus the beam as well. Colour of the light also does not matter significantly if it could cut through the cup and there are red lasers around with several 100mW power.
did you define you arrays and vectors as arrays? or were they just python lists? you don't really expect to start using a different programming language (because that is what it is) and not having to read some documentation? just because you know matlab doesn't mean it's intuitive. how about the stupid convention of starting vectors at element 1 and including the last element, or the . in front of operators to do a piecewise operation. you knew that without reading the documentation? ok you have already invested time into learning matlab, but don't discount something on the basis that it doesn't work like matlab.
IMO that's different in sage as it uses python so it's python style vectors v = [1,2,3] v[1] = 2
yup see my comment to toastermonkey.
OUCH I just did the same mistake I complained about. Jeez I shouldn't post that late at night and especially not while doing two other things at the same time. (I'm a terrible multitasker)
It should be if POW then guarded by MP that is logically equivalent to All POWs are guarded by MPs. Guarded by MP is a necessary condition for being a POW. The way I wrote it it only is a sufficient condition. That really was exactly the thing I was complaining about. Thanks for pointing that out.
But that's what "MPs only guard POWs" means they don't do anything else apart from guarding MPs.
I think the original poster thinks that POWs have to be guarded by MPs. I don't know if this is true, but I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of times POWs are just guarded by normal soldiers. So I don't think the argument was right, because I disagree with the premise. I just pointed out a logical fallacy in your argument.
A similar thing is quite common especially among politicians btw, in German it's called "Umkehrschluss", e.g. if we know that: "if laws are inadequate criminals get off the hook" a lot of politicians make "criminals get off the hook therefore the laws are inadequate and we need new ones" out of this. This argument is logically wrong, because if A then B does not imply if B then A. You see it in political discussions all the time and I really don't understand why the people don't point out this problem more often.
if guarded by MP then POW
this is equivalent to:
All POW are guarded by MP
or
there exists no POW which is not guarded by an MP
but not to:
MPs only guard POWs
equivalent to:
All MPs only guard a POW
or
There exists no MP which is doing something else except guard a POW
which is essentially what you are saying
This made me think of Neil Stephensons Cryptonomicon. Wasn't there something were some guys had attached a huge magnet to their door-frame in case of a police raid, they'd just turn it on, and when the cops would carry the equipment out -> whooosh
Well subject says it all. Currently no insurance company in the world is willing to insure a nuclear plant against an accident. That should make us stop and think. Usually these guys are quite good at accessing risks and benefits. Just looking how many near misses have happened lately in Europe lately, and how many times power companies have ignored safety for profits makes me shiver.
Secondly nuclear power is not cheap. It is very expensive actually. I really don't understand that all the free-market proponents who usually cry out foul about every subsidy don't mind massive subsidies for nuclear power. If only a small fraction of that money would have gone into research into renewable energy sources we'd already have better alternatives.
Then there is the fuel. If you think oil is limited, well there is lots more around than uranium. Also about 70% of the worlds uranium resources are in the control of 2 countries Canada and Australia, compared to OPEC they'd have a lot easier time to agree to do price fixing, then what?! Recycling actually is not much of an option either. It's expensive, it produces weapon-grade plutonium, and it actually does not reduce the amount of nuclear waste. It only reduces the amount of highly radioactive waste, but in the course of recycling you produce _large_ amounts of low to mid radioactive waste, and you have to dispose of that for hundreds to thousands of years as well.
The reason why big companies are so interested in nuclear power is, because it keeps their monopoly in place, it even increases the entry barrier into the market. That's why all the big power companies are so opposed to renewable energies, because they significantly lower the market entry barrier. Everybody can put solar panels onto their roof, a windturbine into their backyard or a small biofuel block power station into their basement (at least almost everybody). So communities could suddenly become totally independent of the large power corporations, that's their nightmare. For me that is already reason enough to oppose nuclear power. Why should my money go into subsidising large corporations?
Actually I really don't know why this ended up as a reply to you. I'm sure I replied to a totally different post. I didn't even read your post until I saw your reply. Weird!
Well, although I disagree with you, on some points your post definitely does not warrant the reply I wrote, as it really wasn't meant for you. As to reading "Das Kapital" I've tried reading the "Komunistische Manifest" and found it quite painful, my respect for actually making it through "Das Kapital". I actually found reading people like Kropotkin or Bakunin et al. quite a lot more interesting. Maybe try reading one of them, gives you quite a different insight into "Socialism". (Both of them were Anarchist and Socialist, so much for Socialism being anti-individualism like somebody else here said).
Again my apologies for replying like this to your post.
First you use Socialism and Communism as if they were the same thing. They are not. Socialism is an economic theory while communism has been argued as both a economic and political ideology.
The other poster was correct Socialism and National Socialism are completely opposite ideologies. Socialism wants collective ownership of productive means, National Socialism wanted and had private ownership. National Socialism despite its name was a capitalist ideology. That is the economic part of the Nazi ideology. In fact lots of owners of big corporations supported Hitler, because they envisioned high profits from his rule (and quite a few of the companies made huge profits during his rule).
Also Socialism is not anti-individual, it is just an economic theory. However a lot of the early proponents of Socialism in the 19th century were strong supporters of civil liberties and opponents of the strong totalitarian states at the time. A lot of our individual freedoms would not be where they are today without some socialists.
Did you see the opposition to political liberalism, anti-communism an corporatism? The militarism, anti-communism nationalism etc. fits very well with todays conservatives, "if you are not for us you are against us" anyone?
You also give the impression that Liberalism and Socialism are the same thing. Liberalism is a political theory while Socialism is an economical theory. That is a big difference. Socialism does not say anything about how people should live together, only how the distribution of productive means hould be organised in a society. Socialism in the strict sense means collective ownership of productive means. This still allows for private property just not in productive means. /p?
Also note that the 3rd Reich was a capitalist society. The productive means were owned privately. The companies which made huge profits out of the war and the holocaust were all privately owned, e.g. IG Farben, Krupp, Thyssen, Siemens. In fact a lot of the owners of these companies supported Hitlers move to power. You really should read a history book, well any sort of book really.
Go read a history book! You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Why is it that the US and Israel are the only two states one cannot criticise without being labelled "anti-american" or "anti-semitic"? Note I haven't read the posts in the link you gave and some of them might be anti-semitic, but the tone of your post rings exactly of that rhetoric. If I am criticising Israel I am not criticising jews, what does the main religion of the state I'm criticising have to do with it anyway? I'm not accusing somebody who is criticising Iran as being anti-islamic. The funny thing is that this sort of argumentation is used by both conservatives and parts of the "left" or "progressives".
And your point is?! Not using hardlinks to directories might waste a few kB, big deal! The daemon might be an advantage, but I might not want a daemon wasting resources all the time.
Didn't Motorola have a similar phone. Forgot the name of it, but if I remember correctly it was build mainly with 2nd-3rd world countries as target audience. IIRC it had a monochrome OLED as a display.
Thanks for your answer, I really asked because I was curious. For me both dselect and apt-get are commandline utilities, that's why I didn't even think about that point of yours. As to the list of games, I kinda know what you mean, however I think that after just a little bit of getting used to apt-cache/apt-get etc. are a lot easier and more comfortable than even aptitude, even more so than dselect. I know that a lot of newbies are afraid of the commandline (I have converted my ex-girlfriend and my mother to linux so I really know). I just can't understand why. For a lot of tasks it is a lot more natural than a gui, as it's essentially language. Sure you got to remember some commands but for quite a few things that is just better than clicking through tons of menus etc. (let's not even speak about finding the option you want). I don't advertise the cli for everything, but for a lot of things it is actually faster and more natural, for example filemanagement.
Yeah that argument again. Every grown up generation says the following generation is stupid etc. you can find this argument dating back to Plato. If it really was true we would have degenerated back to the stone age by now.