Huh? Not quite sure why you directed that at me. I don't disagree. In fact, it's right there in my post:
Young people seem to be viewing computers and the internet as tools they wield for doing whatever it is they want to do, be it contacting friends, maintaining social networks, communicating with other services, doing homework, etc.
The important difference between deduction on the one hand and induction and abduction on the other hand is that deductive reasoning holds necessarily, whereas inductive and abductive reasoning do not. This is because with deductive reasoning, so long as the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. With inductive and abductive reasoning, even though the premises are true, the conclusion may be still be false. A classic example of induction is that (p1) All swans that I've observed are white; (c1) All swans are white. Let's imagine that there are 1000 swans in the world, and I've observed 999 of them. Let's say that (p1) is true. (c1) may still be false. That one remaining swan could be some other colour than white. (Aside: Even if you said (c1') At least xx% of swans are white, it still does not hold necessarily since the total amount of swans is a contingent fact that you have no access to.) This is what is meant when we say that induction does not hold necessarily. On the other hand, if we say (p1) All swans that I've observed are white; (c2) This particular swan that I've observed is white. Now if (p1) is true, (c2) is necessarily true. The conclusion cannot be false. If this is unsatisfying, there's a much better explanation up on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The sibling post pointed out that many fields within science and math try to solve this issue, but I don't think any of them actually try to justify induction. Most of the solutions that I know of creates techniques that if used will increase the reliability of induction. But you can never justify induction deductively, and any attempt to use deduction to justify induction must include induction in its premises (resulting in circular reasoning). Furthermore, deductive reasoning that includes results from inductive reasoning is logically invalid. This may be a bit abstract, so let me try to illustrate with an example.
There's a difference between the decimal number 2, the string "2", and the binary number |10|. Now, there's also the real abstract idea of [2] that we all have. Necessarily, the decimal number 2 and the binary number |10| both refer to this abstract [2]. However, when we write down the string "2", that does not necessarily refer to the abstract [2]. It just so happens to refer to the abstract [2] because we have thus defined it.
So let's say we have 3 formulas. (1) 2 + 2; (2) |10| + |10|; and (3) "2" + "2". Even though all 3 formulas represent [2] + [2], only formulas (1) and (2) represent [2] + [2] necessarily. What happens if you mix and match? So let's say you have (1a) 2 + |10|; (2a) 2 + "2"; and (3a) |10| + "2". In this case, only (1a) is necessarily equal to [2] + [2].
In this example with numbers, the decimal number 2 and the binary number |10| represent conclusions derived from deductive reasoning. They hold necessarily. The string "2" represents results from inductive and abductive reasoning, where the conclusion may so happen to hold, but it does not hold necessarily. Each time you introduce a result from inductive reasoning to a deductive formula, you are adding another element that does not hold necessarily. The problem is that necessity does not have degrees. Something is either necessary or not. Once you use inductive or abductive reasoning, your conclusion does not hold necessarily and is thus logically invalid (all logically valid moves must preserve truth necessarily).
Now as I said in my previous post, this is not a major concern for scientists or most other people. While induction is not a logically valid move (since it does not necessarily preserve truth), it is a move that is reliable enough for practical (and even theoretical) purposes. For science, as previously mentioned (and as you've mentioned), there are many techniques to increase the reliability of induction. Everyone uses induction a lot in their every day lives. We use it all the time. It's impossible to function without induction. For
I'm a philosophy student, and I often get a lot of flak for it. People think that philosophy doesn't matter, and that you need to be a productive member of society and contribute to technology or science or the economy or whatsoever. I think that's what you're trying to get at when you asked "Anything serious?". It seems like to you, you feel that there's some purpose in exploring how things in the world around you work, and to contribute to human knowledge or technology by creating new tools or discovering new principles. Of course, what you do, and what many people in the science and technology sectors do, are very important. I could not practice philosophy as comfortably as I do now without many of the conveniences afforded to me by our current level of science and technology. I recognize that science, technology, and business play a big role in our lives, and that the people who are in those industries are contributing greatly to society.
I don't think many people just exist, as you say. The vast majority of people work. Of those people who do work, a significant minority don't have the resources to do anything but work, eat, socialize a little, play a little, sleep, rinse, repeat. But even those people contribute to society. If we didn't have janitors or retail sales clerks or whatever the case may be, our society would look a lot different. Our society requires some people be at those positions. And while you may still believe in the American Dream, the reality is that most of those people just can't afford to have any drive beyond going to work 10 hours a day to make ends meet.
I suspect, however, that your question is directed more towards those who can afford to develop some sort of drive. And that's why I brought up that I'm a philosophy student. I philosophize. What does that mean? Philosophy means something very different to those who actually study it than to those outside of its sphere. Philosophy is more a way of life than anything. I've studied many subjects in philosophy, ranging from logic to ethics to metaphysics. Philosophy is what I enjoy, and that's my drive. I want to try to reconcile the disconnect between subjective experience and objective occurrences (neural activity). I want to examine why people hold certain systems of ethics and not others, and whether or not there exists some objective measure of morality. So I live my daily life using tools, while using the time I save not worrying about those tools to pursue my interests, and my drives.
Other philosophers are logicians. They examine how systems of logic work, and what types of logical moves are valid or invalid. Now logic is important because there's one problem that the scientific method faces, but most scientists are unaware of such a problem. Scientists wield logic as a tool to perform their work, but they don't examine it on a deeper level. The problem that the scientific method faces is that it centres around the logical move that we call inductive reasoning. I won't dive into the specifics of the problem here, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's a major concern that scientists rely on inductive reasoning even though they don't know exactly how it works, and why it is problematic. Scientists have a certain goal and they need to use certain tools. Their job is not to ensure that their tools work. It is the logician's job to make sure that scientists have good tools with which to perform their jobs.
Now all of this is a manner of saying that some people can't afford to have any drive, while others have different drives than you do. We're all doing something. It seems like you don't realize that there are other things that people can be interested in that are worthwhile. The problem of induction is an important problem in philosophy, as well as the concept of causality. In other disciplines, there are other problems that are interesting that people want to tackle. Some people want to fi
I drive a Honda, but that might be besides the point.
You bring up a fantastic point. There are different features in different cars. Some of them have more or less horsepower, some of them have more or less torque at certain RPM bands, whatever. I don't know much about cars, like I said. But none of that really matters to me. What does matter to me is my experience with the car. When I drive my car, I have certain interactions with it that occur on a regular basis. Feeling the comfort of the seat, the feel and weight of the steering wheel, the sound of the engine, the appearance, etc. Then there are things that don't happen, like accelerator recalls, frequent breakdowns, etc. Those are the things that I'm interested in w.r.t. cars. As long as my car performs as intended and I have a good experience driving it, that's all that matters to me. All the numbers don't matter. I don't need to care whether or not it has more or less horsepower than another model, or whether it has a v4 or v6 engine, or whatever, as long as it performs as expected under the normal range of driving conditions.
This is exactly the same as how many people view computers. They don't need to know whether you have a Core i5 750 or a Phenom II x6 1055T. Those words and numbers mean nothing to them. As long as the computer performs as expected under normal conditions and they have a good experience with it, that's all that matters. This is why Apple computers sell. People don't care about the specs, they don't need to care about the specs. Sure, you pay a price premium for Apple. But what do you get in return? A really easy to use OS that requires little if any configuration. A good enough tech support that will help you fix your problem (with whatever voodoo magic, for all they care) and that is easily reachable and has a human face. You or I may debate the merits of getting a Phenom II x6 or a Core i5, or whether to stick with an AM2+ motherboard or upgrade to AM3, depending on whatever purposes we have. But most people just want a machine for general use purposes, and none of those specs make a huge difference. As long as you're buying current gen hardware (or even hardware from one or two gens previous), it's good enough for most people.
The take-home is that for many of our tools, it doesn't matter how exactly it works, as long as it works and we have a good experience using those tools. You might be interested in those tools, and others might not be.
As for the crappy drivers, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at. There's almost no expectation that you need to know how a car works in order to get a driver's license in most places that I know of. You need to have basic knowledge of how to drive a car, basic driving techniques, the rules of the road, etc. If you think that the problem lies in people not knowing how cars work, then you might want to take that up with your local politicians. It seems to me, however, that crappy drivers are crappy drivers not because they don't know the mechanics of their car, but because they don't give a shit about the rules of the road and have no common courtesy.
And what's your evidence? Of course, we can probably only offer up our own anecdotes, so I'll offer mine up too.
CBC Radio was talking about this earlier in the day. Young people seem to be viewing computers and the internet as tools they wield for doing whatever it is they want to do, be it contacting friends, maintaining social networks, communicating with other services, doing homework, etc. Many of them don't have the same curiousity or interest that many of us (the/. and other techy crowds) have towards these tools. A guest on the show lamented this, saying that we've lost the ability to "tinker" with our tools (*cough*), and that tinkering is an essential life skill.
I don't really agree with that guest. Many of us use tools to accomplish our goals without trying to tinker with them. I drive a car regularly and have no interest in knowing the ins and outs of its mechanics. Similarly with vacuum cleaners, washers and dryers, mechanical pencils, radios, and many other tools you may come across in your daily life. If it works, and helps me do what I want to do, that's all I care about. It's the same attitude that this younger generation (many of those in my university specifically) takes towards computers and the internet.
I think that is the real measure of how integrated something is in our lives. We don't really have to think twice about the tools we use in order to live our lives on a daily basis. They're just there, and we can use them when we need them, and we don't have to know everything about them.
But that doesn't mean that they're stupid. They know "the internet" is a sort of virtual space where services reside. Whatever hand-waving or magic or technological means are involved to deliver those services to them do not matter to them, so long as it works. And that's a perfectly fine attitude to take, imho. We all take that attitude to at least some degree towards at least some of the tools we use on a daily basis. This just boils down to people having different interests in different things. But to try to insinuate that young people are stupid (and unable to differentiate between the internet and Facebook, for example) just because they take that sort of attitude towards something that you or I are interested in is just bigotry. The inner workings of "the internet" are as foreign to them as the techniques and history of knife forging are to me. That's all there is to it.
On top of that, you can use Quick Look. Just select the first file, press the space bar, and you have a lightweight window that displays a preview of your file. Just press the up/down or left/right keys (depending on your view) to scroll through files. It can display previews of photos, videos, documents, you name it. The way they integrated this extremely useful feature into the OS is one of the best things about OS X, so I'm surprised that people don't know about it.
Granted, it was a feature introduced in Leopard, so if you're using Tiger or earlier releases, you won't have Quick Look.
You know, before I went to university, I thought the exact same thing. What's in it for me? I'm a smart guy, have a high IQ, know a lot. I'm generally smarter than many people who've graduated university. So why do employers insist on a post-secondary degree or diploma to hire for certain positions?
Then I went to university. Shortly after I got in, my world view got blown the fuck up. There are a lot of important lessons that I've learned in university.
Humility, respect, and perspective were the first to come. Most of us here were probably at the top of our graduating classes in high school in practically every subject. But once you get into a good university that requires you to take different courses (mine requires at least one full year course or equivalent in each of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Sciences), while you may excel in your own particular field of study, you'll also start to realize that people in other fields of study are equally impressive in their reasoning and knowledge. You'll also start to realize that your interests and expertise do not encompass the world, and that the world is a lot bigger than we tend to give it credit for. People are more intellectually diverse, and that diversity does not mean that they are intellectually inferior. You gain a lot of perspective.
Your social skills will also improve if you choose to engage in campus social life. Once you get past high school and into university, it seems like most people just press a social reset button. Gone are candies and nerds and other cliques, everyone's just a student. You'll quickly learn the benefits of networking, especially with those people with interests outside of your own, both as a social support mechanism as well as for professional purposes. If you're in the sciences, you'll often find yourself having to work with other people and improving your co-operation and leadership skills, two skills that are key to your professional success.
Individual work ethics and research skills will also be developed. You learn that there's a lot more to research than Wikipedia (your ass will swiftly be kicked if you try to use it as anything other than a quick overview/starting point). Your post-secondary institution will grant you unlimited access to many research portals, where you can find papers on practically any field of human knowledge. If you do well in university, your employer will know that you've had experience doing a lot of individual research and with strict deadlines approaching. Having good time management skills, self-control, and generally good work ethics are also key to being a good employee.
Then there's the actual knowledge. I can't personally speak to computer programming/science/engineering, but I do have a friend who graduated with a BSc in Software Engineering. He's told me over the years that he's really learned a lot about programming and software engineering from the school. Software engineering in particular requires you to be open minded and have different perspectives on possible solutions. He learned how to look at the problem from different angles, and different ways to attack similar problems. From my own view, there can really be no replacement for the knowledge I've gained in the past few years at this school. In fact, if I never attended this school, I wouldn't even have known that I was interested in what I'm doing right now, philosophy.
That's only a few of the many things that I can easily put into words about my experience in university. I've experienced and learned so much more, but I wouldn't have the time, nor the words in many instances, to write about them here. The catch is that you have to be willing to learn. You have to open your mind and look at university as a whole life learning experience. I know many people who just come to school in order to get that piece of paper that will get them a better chance at a job. Some of those people end up realizing the social and educational potential of the university experience at-large, but most of them learn n
YouTube is supposed to be a kid-friendly place. Parents could do their best to try to responsibly monitor and guide their kids' surfing habits, but still fail because of this exploit. This is not funny, nor awesome. This is not someone finding a potential exploit and graciously letting Google know so they can patch it up. Just a bunch of 4channers screwing around, and to hell with the consequences. And people like you encouraging that type of behaviour.
Just because this is The Internet(TM), it doesn't mean that common courtesy need not apply.
All-star baseball player struggles at figure skating - clearly shows all-star game votes don't reflect players' abilities! Grammy award winning singer can't perform simple clown juggling routine - they hand out Grammys to anyone these days! Nobel prize winning chemist's sculpture harshly criticized by art critics - all previous research papers under scrutiny!
I felt it in Toronto as well. I was 21 floors up, so it was pretty intense. Lights, doors, etc were swinging. According to my security guard, someone on the upper floors of one of the buildings here saw their furniture move across the floor.
Once I made my way down 21 flights of stairs, I spoke to some of my neighbours. About 3/4 of all the residents brought up the G20 jokingly. Pretty much sums up what we think about the event, huh?
This is a retarded story. The only mention of Shatner in the whole FA is this:
One of the more controversial names being thrown out there on Facebook is that of Captain Kirk, actor William Shatner.
"It's time for Canada to boldly go where no country has gone before," notes a nearly 10,000-strong Facebook fan page that supports the idea.
There might have been another submission that could have been rejected that included this link, but, again, basically right off the bat, you see:
The Facebook fan page "Help Nominate William Shatner for Governor General" launched on March 22, 2010.
The OP is an asshole for submitting this as a serious story and writing the summary as if it were legit, and Taco, representative of all the editors I suppose, is being irresponsible for posting such a bullshit story like this on the front page.
Many people have been lamenting that the quality of stories have been going down in Slashdot. I don't really have that much of a gripe about that. I don't come to Slashdot for breaking news or the like. But when you start to post flat out falsehoods (there is no shortlist, there's not even a rumour, it's just a god damn Facebook group), that's when you cross the line into tabloidism. Horrible.
Lightroom, Picasa, Bibble Pro, practically anything on any OS works.
There's an "export version" or similarly named option on almost all modern photo managers that will create a new copy of the selected photo(s) with all of the changes embedded in the new file. It sounds like Mr. Duffy is just making changes in his photo manager, and then trying to upload the original file rather than using the "export version" option. The database system used by most photo managers is to help you preserve Masters of your photos so that you don't accidentally make an irreversible edit. Until we have valuable features like uncropping, the database model that most photo managers use is a much more sane system than simply modifying the original file each and every time an edit is made.
Reading TFS made me very excited about the potential fundamental developments in physics. Except I don't know a thing about physics, so I'm really not sure what I'm excited about. All these words like muon, tau, and neutrino have little place in my everyday life, but they sound so interesting!
This is what the Average American must feel like when they hear stories about Web x.0 laden with the latest buzzwords on CNN. I can finally relate!
The link to the Humble Indie Bundle in this slashdot post linked to another slashdot post wherein that link to the Humble Indie Bundle linked to yet another slashdot post which finally contained the real link to the info on the Humble Indie Bundle.
We all hate it when we have to jump through multiple hoops (articles separated into an inane number of pages, exit pages/frames, etc.) in the name of reader retention when it's done by other websites. When slashdot does it, it's just as bad.
I think you're definitely on the right track. A nitpick before moving on, philosophy existed prior to science. Philosophy still exists despite the emergence and evolution of science because science doesn't address everything.
Parent is completely right that science is a model that is logically consistent, given a certain set of premises. These premises are, for the most part, uncontested in their utility value. Although utility value says little about truth value. Take cause/effect reasoning, for example, a fundamental pillar in the scientific method. The problem of induction (summarized at Wikipedia and discussed at greater length in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is a classic question arising from the early modern (16th/17th centuries) era of philosophy that called into question the logical validity of induction. The general philosophical consensus is that induction is a very useful tool of reason that works pretty well for us, but it's not logically valid in the sense that deduction is logically valid.
Science can't prove that induction is true, because science takes induction as one of its core premises. Using science to prove induction is just begging the question, assuming what is to be proven. Here, we get a clue as to what sorts of things science cannot "eff". Anything that the scientific method takes as a premise cannot ever be proven by science. It's simply a logical fallacy to try to do so.
This second premise that I want to talk about is probably the more poignant in this conversation. The scientific method assumes that every physical effect can be traced back to a physical cause. This stems from the fact that science is based on observation, and we can only observe the physical - a largely practical assumption. This may seem to be a given for many of you, and that's precisely the point. Causal closure of the physical is philosophically contentious (I'd like to link you to a quick and dirty explanation, but this topic is not easy to breach. The best link I can give you is probably this article on physicalism.). Now, let's try to focus on one thing at a time. Forget about all the religious hoopla and obviously false empirically verifiable claims that the bible (or whatever other religious text) makes. Let's just talk about the possibility of a non-physical god or deity. If a non-physical god existed that could create physical effects, science would not be able to explain or discover that god. As mentioned above, science is based on observation, and we can only observe the physical. We cannot observe anything non-physical, regardless of its existence. In this case, science is the wrong tool to discuss the potential existence of such an entity. Science simply cannot say anything about it. To assert the deity's non-existence would be logically fallacious (since the deity is non-physical and we have chosen to assume causal closure). To assert the deity's existence would not be scientifically valid.
It is here that religion, or perhaps more accurately philosophy, can step in to try to explain what's going on in the non-physical realm. Of course, such explanations won't be as exact as the explanations of physical phenomena given to us by science, but at least we haven't pre-supposed the non-existence of non-physical things in the aforementioned disciplines.
As an aside, I think that basic and fundamental philosophy of science should be studied by everyone who studies or works in the sciences. We have to recognize that as useful a tool as science is, it is not appropriate for every single job. There are some things that cannot be explained by science, because they are assumed by science. To try to explain such things is logically fallacious. Yet many men of science, who claim to be rational and logical, fail to see the fallacies they commit when they try to explain (or deny) things outs
Some readers at the XKCD forums pointed out that the term may have originated from this MetaFilter thread back in 2007:
[blockquote]It's not spoonerism. More like a portmanteau combined with a malapropism. So I'd go with malamanteau or a portmanpropism. posted by ludwig_van at 3:31 PM on July 17, 2007[/blockquote]
We had a similar proportional representation movement in Canada. It failed. Particularly for many of the reasons you mentioned. The biggest and most fatal flaw of proportional representation, in my opinion, is the lack of direct representation as you mentioned. This entails several unsavoury results:
- No local representation. Geography-based representation is huge for a country like Canada. Small communities need a voice. Although they may not have an equal voice in Parliament, at least they won't get ignored as they would in a proportional representation system. - No accountability. In a FPTP (first past the post) system, an MP is accountable to their electorate. If you F up, you will be voted out. In a proportional system, the parties decide who the MPs are, so even if an MP Fs up, they may not be replaced by the party. - No attachment to electorate. This is related to both of the above. An attachment to their electorate means that, at least in principle and outwardly, MPs need to take into account the interests of their electorate. Of the people they represent. In a proportional representation system, MPs will not be representing the people. They will be representatives of their party.
The last point illustrates, I think, a very important, but also very subtle, difference. When you represent the people of your electorate, you have to at least have your electorate's interests in the back of your mind. You will ultimately be judged by the people. Even if you F up and still manage to keep the party's candidacy, the people may vote you out. However, when you represent your party, your boss is not the people, but the party's bigwigs. As long as you can keep the favour of your party, you will keep your seat. All you need to be concerned with is maintaining the party line, while the party does the PR for you.
There's almost no situation where a proportional representation system would beat out a FPTP system, in terms of keeping the people in charge in a democracy. I think a proportional representation system is only appealing because people don't really grasp all the concepts involved in a solid, democratic Parliamentary system. I'm not saying that FPTP is the ideal system, but it's the best that we have so far. Proportional representation falls short on so many aspects that it's just not worth any serious consideration. You'll notice that proportional representation movements are almost ubiquitously popular movements that don't have much expert or academic support. People who know the Parliamentary systems well know that it won't work.
* No matter how much you wish to use them, Battlesmasher Alliance, Fightmace Alliance, and Pewpewbangbang Friends are registered trademark copyright properties of Games Workshop and may not be used for any reason whatsoever in any third party materials.
I'm kind of hesitant to reply. I see a kind of discrepancy, but I'm not quite sure how to explain it, or how to rectify it. So I'm just going to do my best to describe what I see.
As it stands, buying software is kind of like buying music. And neither is really anything like buying, for example, cake. While a lot of slashdotters support Software as a Service, very few, if any, would support Music as a Service. Why? We want to own media content, but we don't really care about owning software, just using it. But both are very similar. We can't ever actually own either. Other people own copyrights or patents on them. In both cases, when we "buy" the product, we're actually just buying a license to use that product. We don't own the product, we just have a license to use it under certain conditions. Same goes for games.
Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be. On the one hand, I hate not being able to copy my music across devices. I hate having to be connected to the internet to be able to play a certain game. On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish.
SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. Would the same model applied to music or games not work? Why wouldn't it work? Is it just a conceptual problem (i.e., we have this idea that we should "own" music or games that we pay for)? What if it was marketed appropriately (i.e., just honestly tell people that they're simply paying for a license to play the game or listen to music on the licenser's terms, instead of implying that paying for it = owning it), would that solve the problem?
Thinking about all of this is making my head hurt. I have no idea what the actual solution should be. There are arguments to be made on every side, and I'm not in a particularly good position to make any of those arguments. I just wanted to get the conversation started.
What are the benefits and drawbacks of SaaS? How would that be fundamentally different from MaaS or GaaS?
Having actually played the game, getting a perfect game is not easy.
You have to get 27 straight outs. You get an out one of two ways: 1) you strike out the batter, or 2) the batter hits the ball and your defence gets the batter out. Complicating things further, it gets progressively harder to pitch accurately when your pitcher gets tired (after you hit about 80 pitches, you have less than half a second to complete the pitching gesture. After 100 pitches, good luck getting a good pitch off even if you pull off the gesture under a quarter of a second).
So you have to weigh whether you want to focus on strike outs and risk getting your pitch count too high to handle, or you focus on trying to get the batter to hit into the defence and keep your pitch count low. If you try to pitch to hit, you risk having a ball just dribble by your infield or having a blooper drop in between your infield and outfield, ruining your game. Adding to the frustration is a buggy infield AI that sometimes allows soft liners through, or the first baseman running for a ball that should've been the second baseman's thus leaving first base empty.
In any event, minus the buggy infield AI, the perfect game challenge highlighted something very important for MLB 2K10. When you're pitching, it is a pretty immersive experience. You really feel the pressure when you're delivering the pitch, and you have that split second of helplessness and frustration when the batter makes solid contact with the ball.
Pitching is definitely the highlight of the game, and the reward did a pretty good job to draw attention to that. Although we can't speak to the financial success of the campaign without any sales stats, it was at least a success in the sense that it was effective in showcasing the strongest aspect of the game.
I'm not sure exactly how you protect against that. The software is meant to detect a certain trigger and complete certain actions based on that trigger. It seems in principle impossible for the software to figure out the reasons behind the trigger occurring (how do you tell the difference between an aggressive speculative trade and a typo when they both result in the same thing? Namely, selling off $X amount of shares.). This is not just a problem with software, but you can imagine humans doing the same thing. They see a huge sell off of a certain stock and need to make a quick on-the-spot decision on whether to hold or sell. Maybe the seller figured out something was going on in the company. Maybe it was a typo. You can't know for sure.
So it seems less like a problem with the software, and more like just a side effect of a speculative trading model.
Just because they're, as you put it, hypothetical situations, it doesn't mean that it's in principle impossible to figure out lost sales to some degree of accuracy. We use subjunctive (or counterfactual) conditionals (as opposed to material conditionals) all the time in every day life. "If I were a lizard, I would be a reptile" is a subjunctive conditional statement that we can evaluate to a very good degree of accuracy.
Indeed, most scientific conclusions are made in the subjunctive. "We have completed various tests and found the diffraction index of this transparent solution to be $X. Therefore, if light were to travel through this solution, then it would behave like $Y." We tend to think that these scientific subjunctives can be an accurate description of what could have happened.
So it can't be just because we're talking about the subjunctive that it is in principle impossible to evaluate lost sales accurately. There must be some other reason why we can't figure out lost sales, if you were to make that claim.
I'm not an expert in statistics or economics, but I'm willing to guess that a sufficiently robust statistical model of the economics of media/game purchases can predict lost sales to an acceptable degree of accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Not quite sure why you directed that at me. I don't disagree. In fact, it's right there in my post:
The important difference between deduction on the one hand and induction and abduction on the other hand is that deductive reasoning holds necessarily, whereas inductive and abductive reasoning do not. This is because with deductive reasoning, so long as the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. With inductive and abductive reasoning, even though the premises are true, the conclusion may be still be false. A classic example of induction is that (p1) All swans that I've observed are white; (c1) All swans are white. Let's imagine that there are 1000 swans in the world, and I've observed 999 of them. Let's say that (p1) is true. (c1) may still be false. That one remaining swan could be some other colour than white. (Aside: Even if you said (c1') At least xx% of swans are white, it still does not hold necessarily since the total amount of swans is a contingent fact that you have no access to.) This is what is meant when we say that induction does not hold necessarily. On the other hand, if we say (p1) All swans that I've observed are white; (c2) This particular swan that I've observed is white. Now if (p1) is true, (c2) is necessarily true. The conclusion cannot be false. If this is unsatisfying, there's a much better explanation up on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The sibling post pointed out that many fields within science and math try to solve this issue, but I don't think any of them actually try to justify induction. Most of the solutions that I know of creates techniques that if used will increase the reliability of induction. But you can never justify induction deductively, and any attempt to use deduction to justify induction must include induction in its premises (resulting in circular reasoning). Furthermore, deductive reasoning that includes results from inductive reasoning is logically invalid. This may be a bit abstract, so let me try to illustrate with an example.
There's a difference between the decimal number 2, the string "2", and the binary number |10|. Now, there's also the real abstract idea of [2] that we all have. Necessarily, the decimal number 2 and the binary number |10| both refer to this abstract [2]. However, when we write down the string "2", that does not necessarily refer to the abstract [2]. It just so happens to refer to the abstract [2] because we have thus defined it.
So let's say we have 3 formulas. (1) 2 + 2; (2) |10| + |10|; and (3) "2" + "2". Even though all 3 formulas represent [2] + [2], only formulas (1) and (2) represent [2] + [2] necessarily. What happens if you mix and match? So let's say you have (1a) 2 + |10|; (2a) 2 + "2"; and (3a) |10| + "2". In this case, only (1a) is necessarily equal to [2] + [2].
In this example with numbers, the decimal number 2 and the binary number |10| represent conclusions derived from deductive reasoning. They hold necessarily. The string "2" represents results from inductive and abductive reasoning, where the conclusion may so happen to hold, but it does not hold necessarily. Each time you introduce a result from inductive reasoning to a deductive formula, you are adding another element that does not hold necessarily. The problem is that necessity does not have degrees. Something is either necessary or not. Once you use inductive or abductive reasoning, your conclusion does not hold necessarily and is thus logically invalid (all logically valid moves must preserve truth necessarily).
Now as I said in my previous post, this is not a major concern for scientists or most other people. While induction is not a logically valid move (since it does not necessarily preserve truth), it is a move that is reliable enough for practical (and even theoretical) purposes. For science, as previously mentioned (and as you've mentioned), there are many techniques to increase the reliability of induction. Everyone uses induction a lot in their every day lives. We use it all the time. It's impossible to function without induction. For
I'm a philosophy student, and I often get a lot of flak for it. People think that philosophy doesn't matter, and that you need to be a productive member of society and contribute to technology or science or the economy or whatsoever. I think that's what you're trying to get at when you asked "Anything serious?". It seems like to you, you feel that there's some purpose in exploring how things in the world around you work, and to contribute to human knowledge or technology by creating new tools or discovering new principles. Of course, what you do, and what many people in the science and technology sectors do, are very important. I could not practice philosophy as comfortably as I do now without many of the conveniences afforded to me by our current level of science and technology. I recognize that science, technology, and business play a big role in our lives, and that the people who are in those industries are contributing greatly to society.
I don't think many people just exist, as you say. The vast majority of people work. Of those people who do work, a significant minority don't have the resources to do anything but work, eat, socialize a little, play a little, sleep, rinse, repeat. But even those people contribute to society. If we didn't have janitors or retail sales clerks or whatever the case may be, our society would look a lot different. Our society requires some people be at those positions. And while you may still believe in the American Dream, the reality is that most of those people just can't afford to have any drive beyond going to work 10 hours a day to make ends meet.
I suspect, however, that your question is directed more towards those who can afford to develop some sort of drive. And that's why I brought up that I'm a philosophy student. I philosophize. What does that mean? Philosophy means something very different to those who actually study it than to those outside of its sphere. Philosophy is more a way of life than anything. I've studied many subjects in philosophy, ranging from logic to ethics to metaphysics. Philosophy is what I enjoy, and that's my drive. I want to try to reconcile the disconnect between subjective experience and objective occurrences (neural activity). I want to examine why people hold certain systems of ethics and not others, and whether or not there exists some objective measure of morality. So I live my daily life using tools, while using the time I save not worrying about those tools to pursue my interests, and my drives.
Other philosophers are logicians. They examine how systems of logic work, and what types of logical moves are valid or invalid. Now logic is important because there's one problem that the scientific method faces, but most scientists are unaware of such a problem. Scientists wield logic as a tool to perform their work, but they don't examine it on a deeper level. The problem that the scientific method faces is that it centres around the logical move that we call inductive reasoning. I won't dive into the specifics of the problem here, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's a major concern that scientists rely on inductive reasoning even though they don't know exactly how it works, and why it is problematic. Scientists have a certain goal and they need to use certain tools. Their job is not to ensure that their tools work. It is the logician's job to make sure that scientists have good tools with which to perform their jobs.
Now all of this is a manner of saying that some people can't afford to have any drive, while others have different drives than you do. We're all doing something. It seems like you don't realize that there are other things that people can be interested in that are worthwhile. The problem of induction is an important problem in philosophy, as well as the concept of causality. In other disciplines, there are other problems that are interesting that people want to tackle. Some people want to fi
I drive a Honda, but that might be besides the point.
You bring up a fantastic point. There are different features in different cars. Some of them have more or less horsepower, some of them have more or less torque at certain RPM bands, whatever. I don't know much about cars, like I said. But none of that really matters to me. What does matter to me is my experience with the car. When I drive my car, I have certain interactions with it that occur on a regular basis. Feeling the comfort of the seat, the feel and weight of the steering wheel, the sound of the engine, the appearance, etc. Then there are things that don't happen, like accelerator recalls, frequent breakdowns, etc. Those are the things that I'm interested in w.r.t. cars. As long as my car performs as intended and I have a good experience driving it, that's all that matters to me. All the numbers don't matter. I don't need to care whether or not it has more or less horsepower than another model, or whether it has a v4 or v6 engine, or whatever, as long as it performs as expected under the normal range of driving conditions.
This is exactly the same as how many people view computers. They don't need to know whether you have a Core i5 750 or a Phenom II x6 1055T. Those words and numbers mean nothing to them. As long as the computer performs as expected under normal conditions and they have a good experience with it, that's all that matters. This is why Apple computers sell. People don't care about the specs, they don't need to care about the specs. Sure, you pay a price premium for Apple. But what do you get in return? A really easy to use OS that requires little if any configuration. A good enough tech support that will help you fix your problem (with whatever voodoo magic, for all they care) and that is easily reachable and has a human face. You or I may debate the merits of getting a Phenom II x6 or a Core i5, or whether to stick with an AM2+ motherboard or upgrade to AM3, depending on whatever purposes we have. But most people just want a machine for general use purposes, and none of those specs make a huge difference. As long as you're buying current gen hardware (or even hardware from one or two gens previous), it's good enough for most people.
The take-home is that for many of our tools, it doesn't matter how exactly it works, as long as it works and we have a good experience using those tools. You might be interested in those tools, and others might not be.
As for the crappy drivers, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at. There's almost no expectation that you need to know how a car works in order to get a driver's license in most places that I know of. You need to have basic knowledge of how to drive a car, basic driving techniques, the rules of the road, etc. If you think that the problem lies in people not knowing how cars work, then you might want to take that up with your local politicians. It seems to me, however, that crappy drivers are crappy drivers not because they don't know the mechanics of their car, but because they don't give a shit about the rules of the road and have no common courtesy.
And what's your evidence? Of course, we can probably only offer up our own anecdotes, so I'll offer mine up too.
CBC Radio was talking about this earlier in the day. Young people seem to be viewing computers and the internet as tools they wield for doing whatever it is they want to do, be it contacting friends, maintaining social networks, communicating with other services, doing homework, etc. Many of them don't have the same curiousity or interest that many of us (the /. and other techy crowds) have towards these tools. A guest on the show lamented this, saying that we've lost the ability to "tinker" with our tools (*cough*), and that tinkering is an essential life skill.
I don't really agree with that guest. Many of us use tools to accomplish our goals without trying to tinker with them. I drive a car regularly and have no interest in knowing the ins and outs of its mechanics. Similarly with vacuum cleaners, washers and dryers, mechanical pencils, radios, and many other tools you may come across in your daily life. If it works, and helps me do what I want to do, that's all I care about. It's the same attitude that this younger generation (many of those in my university specifically) takes towards computers and the internet.
I think that is the real measure of how integrated something is in our lives. We don't really have to think twice about the tools we use in order to live our lives on a daily basis. They're just there, and we can use them when we need them, and we don't have to know everything about them.
But that doesn't mean that they're stupid. They know "the internet" is a sort of virtual space where services reside. Whatever hand-waving or magic or technological means are involved to deliver those services to them do not matter to them, so long as it works. And that's a perfectly fine attitude to take, imho. We all take that attitude to at least some degree towards at least some of the tools we use on a daily basis. This just boils down to people having different interests in different things. But to try to insinuate that young people are stupid (and unable to differentiate between the internet and Facebook, for example) just because they take that sort of attitude towards something that you or I are interested in is just bigotry. The inner workings of "the internet" are as foreign to them as the techniques and history of knife forging are to me. That's all there is to it.
On top of that, you can use Quick Look. Just select the first file, press the space bar, and you have a lightweight window that displays a preview of your file. Just press the up/down or left/right keys (depending on your view) to scroll through files. It can display previews of photos, videos, documents, you name it. The way they integrated this extremely useful feature into the OS is one of the best things about OS X, so I'm surprised that people don't know about it.
Granted, it was a feature introduced in Leopard, so if you're using Tiger or earlier releases, you won't have Quick Look.
You know, before I went to university, I thought the exact same thing. What's in it for me? I'm a smart guy, have a high IQ, know a lot. I'm generally smarter than many people who've graduated university. So why do employers insist on a post-secondary degree or diploma to hire for certain positions?
Then I went to university. Shortly after I got in, my world view got blown the fuck up. There are a lot of important lessons that I've learned in university.
Humility, respect, and perspective were the first to come. Most of us here were probably at the top of our graduating classes in high school in practically every subject. But once you get into a good university that requires you to take different courses (mine requires at least one full year course or equivalent in each of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Sciences), while you may excel in your own particular field of study, you'll also start to realize that people in other fields of study are equally impressive in their reasoning and knowledge. You'll also start to realize that your interests and expertise do not encompass the world, and that the world is a lot bigger than we tend to give it credit for. People are more intellectually diverse, and that diversity does not mean that they are intellectually inferior. You gain a lot of perspective.
Your social skills will also improve if you choose to engage in campus social life. Once you get past high school and into university, it seems like most people just press a social reset button. Gone are candies and nerds and other cliques, everyone's just a student. You'll quickly learn the benefits of networking, especially with those people with interests outside of your own, both as a social support mechanism as well as for professional purposes. If you're in the sciences, you'll often find yourself having to work with other people and improving your co-operation and leadership skills, two skills that are key to your professional success.
Individual work ethics and research skills will also be developed. You learn that there's a lot more to research than Wikipedia (your ass will swiftly be kicked if you try to use it as anything other than a quick overview/starting point). Your post-secondary institution will grant you unlimited access to many research portals, where you can find papers on practically any field of human knowledge. If you do well in university, your employer will know that you've had experience doing a lot of individual research and with strict deadlines approaching. Having good time management skills, self-control, and generally good work ethics are also key to being a good employee.
Then there's the actual knowledge. I can't personally speak to computer programming/science/engineering, but I do have a friend who graduated with a BSc in Software Engineering. He's told me over the years that he's really learned a lot about programming and software engineering from the school. Software engineering in particular requires you to be open minded and have different perspectives on possible solutions. He learned how to look at the problem from different angles, and different ways to attack similar problems. From my own view, there can really be no replacement for the knowledge I've gained in the past few years at this school. In fact, if I never attended this school, I wouldn't even have known that I was interested in what I'm doing right now, philosophy.
That's only a few of the many things that I can easily put into words about my experience in university. I've experienced and learned so much more, but I wouldn't have the time, nor the words in many instances, to write about them here. The catch is that you have to be willing to learn. You have to open your mind and look at university as a whole life learning experience. I know many people who just come to school in order to get that piece of paper that will get them a better chance at a job. Some of those people end up realizing the social and educational potential of the university experience at-large, but most of them learn n
YouTube is supposed to be a kid-friendly place. Parents could do their best to try to responsibly monitor and guide their kids' surfing habits, but still fail because of this exploit. This is not funny, nor awesome. This is not someone finding a potential exploit and graciously letting Google know so they can patch it up. Just a bunch of 4channers screwing around, and to hell with the consequences. And people like you encouraging that type of behaviour.
Just because this is The Internet(TM), it doesn't mean that common courtesy need not apply.
All-star baseball player struggles at figure skating - clearly shows all-star game votes don't reflect players' abilities!
Grammy award winning singer can't perform simple clown juggling routine - they hand out Grammys to anyone these days!
Nobel prize winning chemist's sculpture harshly criticized by art critics - all previous research papers under scrutiny!
I felt it in Toronto as well. I was 21 floors up, so it was pretty intense. Lights, doors, etc were swinging. According to my security guard, someone on the upper floors of one of the buildings here saw their furniture move across the floor.
Once I made my way down 21 flights of stairs, I spoke to some of my neighbours. About 3/4 of all the residents brought up the G20 jokingly. Pretty much sums up what we think about the event, huh?
This is a retarded story. The only mention of Shatner in the whole FA is this:
There might have been another submission that could have been rejected that included this link, but, again, basically right off the bat, you see:
The OP is an asshole for submitting this as a serious story and writing the summary as if it were legit, and Taco, representative of all the editors I suppose, is being irresponsible for posting such a bullshit story like this on the front page.
Many people have been lamenting that the quality of stories have been going down in Slashdot. I don't really have that much of a gripe about that. I don't come to Slashdot for breaking news or the like. But when you start to post flat out falsehoods (there is no shortlist, there's not even a rumour, it's just a god damn Facebook group), that's when you cross the line into tabloidism. Horrible.
Really? You found a way to attack Apple and Steve Jobs on an article about using potatoes as batteries?!
Well, you're creative at least. I'll give you that much.
Lightroom, Picasa, Bibble Pro, practically anything on any OS works.
There's an "export version" or similarly named option on almost all modern photo managers that will create a new copy of the selected photo(s) with all of the changes embedded in the new file. It sounds like Mr. Duffy is just making changes in his photo manager, and then trying to upload the original file rather than using the "export version" option. The database system used by most photo managers is to help you preserve Masters of your photos so that you don't accidentally make an irreversible edit. Until we have valuable features like uncropping, the database model that most photo managers use is a much more sane system than simply modifying the original file each and every time an edit is made.
"Ah - You're a Linux user, I see."
Reading TFS made me very excited about the potential fundamental developments in physics. Except I don't know a thing about physics, so I'm really not sure what I'm excited about. All these words like muon, tau, and neutrino have little place in my everyday life, but they sound so interesting!
This is what the Average American must feel like when they hear stories about Web x.0 laden with the latest buzzwords on CNN. I can finally relate!
The link to the Humble Indie Bundle in this slashdot post linked to another slashdot post wherein that link to the Humble Indie Bundle linked to yet another slashdot post which finally contained the real link to the info on the Humble Indie Bundle.
We all hate it when we have to jump through multiple hoops (articles separated into an inane number of pages, exit pages/frames, etc.) in the name of reader retention when it's done by other websites. When slashdot does it, it's just as bad.
Obviously skipping my coffee this morning wasn't a bright idea. I withdraw my nitpick.
I think you're definitely on the right track. A nitpick before moving on, philosophy existed prior to science. Philosophy still exists despite the emergence and evolution of science because science doesn't address everything.
Parent is completely right that science is a model that is logically consistent, given a certain set of premises. These premises are, for the most part, uncontested in their utility value. Although utility value says little about truth value. Take cause/effect reasoning, for example, a fundamental pillar in the scientific method. The problem of induction (summarized at Wikipedia and discussed at greater length in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is a classic question arising from the early modern (16th/17th centuries) era of philosophy that called into question the logical validity of induction. The general philosophical consensus is that induction is a very useful tool of reason that works pretty well for us, but it's not logically valid in the sense that deduction is logically valid.
Science can't prove that induction is true, because science takes induction as one of its core premises. Using science to prove induction is just begging the question, assuming what is to be proven. Here, we get a clue as to what sorts of things science cannot "eff". Anything that the scientific method takes as a premise cannot ever be proven by science. It's simply a logical fallacy to try to do so.
This second premise that I want to talk about is probably the more poignant in this conversation. The scientific method assumes that every physical effect can be traced back to a physical cause. This stems from the fact that science is based on observation, and we can only observe the physical - a largely practical assumption. This may seem to be a given for many of you, and that's precisely the point. Causal closure of the physical is philosophically contentious (I'd like to link you to a quick and dirty explanation, but this topic is not easy to breach. The best link I can give you is probably this article on physicalism.). Now, let's try to focus on one thing at a time. Forget about all the religious hoopla and obviously false empirically verifiable claims that the bible (or whatever other religious text) makes. Let's just talk about the possibility of a non-physical god or deity. If a non-physical god existed that could create physical effects, science would not be able to explain or discover that god. As mentioned above, science is based on observation, and we can only observe the physical. We cannot observe anything non-physical, regardless of its existence. In this case, science is the wrong tool to discuss the potential existence of such an entity. Science simply cannot say anything about it. To assert the deity's non-existence would be logically fallacious (since the deity is non-physical and we have chosen to assume causal closure). To assert the deity's existence would not be scientifically valid.
It is here that religion, or perhaps more accurately philosophy, can step in to try to explain what's going on in the non-physical realm. Of course, such explanations won't be as exact as the explanations of physical phenomena given to us by science, but at least we haven't pre-supposed the non-existence of non-physical things in the aforementioned disciplines.
As an aside, I think that basic and fundamental philosophy of science should be studied by everyone who studies or works in the sciences. We have to recognize that as useful a tool as science is, it is not appropriate for every single job. There are some things that cannot be explained by science, because they are assumed by science. To try to explain such things is logically fallacious. Yet many men of science, who claim to be rational and logical, fail to see the fallacies they commit when they try to explain (or deny) things outs
Some readers at the XKCD forums pointed out that the term may have originated from this MetaFilter thread back in 2007:
[blockquote]It's not spoonerism. More like a portmanteau combined with a malapropism. So I'd go with malamanteau or a portmanpropism.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:31 PM on July 17, 2007[/blockquote]
We had a similar proportional representation movement in Canada. It failed. Particularly for many of the reasons you mentioned. The biggest and most fatal flaw of proportional representation, in my opinion, is the lack of direct representation as you mentioned. This entails several unsavoury results:
- No local representation. Geography-based representation is huge for a country like Canada. Small communities need a voice. Although they may not have an equal voice in Parliament, at least they won't get ignored as they would in a proportional representation system.
- No accountability. In a FPTP (first past the post) system, an MP is accountable to their electorate. If you F up, you will be voted out. In a proportional system, the parties decide who the MPs are, so even if an MP Fs up, they may not be replaced by the party.
- No attachment to electorate. This is related to both of the above. An attachment to their electorate means that, at least in principle and outwardly, MPs need to take into account the interests of their electorate. Of the people they represent. In a proportional representation system, MPs will not be representing the people. They will be representatives of their party.
The last point illustrates, I think, a very important, but also very subtle, difference. When you represent the people of your electorate, you have to at least have your electorate's interests in the back of your mind. You will ultimately be judged by the people. Even if you F up and still manage to keep the party's candidacy, the people may vote you out. However, when you represent your party, your boss is not the people, but the party's bigwigs. As long as you can keep the favour of your party, you will keep your seat. All you need to be concerned with is maintaining the party line, while the party does the PR for you.
There's almost no situation where a proportional representation system would beat out a FPTP system, in terms of keeping the people in charge in a democracy. I think a proportional representation system is only appealing because people don't really grasp all the concepts involved in a solid, democratic Parliamentary system. I'm not saying that FPTP is the ideal system, but it's the best that we have so far. Proportional representation falls short on so many aspects that it's just not worth any serious consideration. You'll notice that proportional representation movements are almost ubiquitously popular movements that don't have much expert or academic support. People who know the Parliamentary systems well know that it won't work.
Dear fans,
Please be advised that usage of the Warhammer(TM)®© name on third party websites is not legally authorized. However, we really do value our beloved fans. To show our sincerity, we have come up with a few example names that you may wish to use* to set up your fan site for your favourite online game, Warhammer(TM)®© Online. Instead of Warhammer(TM)®© Alliance, please consider another name similar to the following:
- Battlesmasher Alliance
- Fightmace Alliance
- Pewpewbangbang Friends
Now it's your turn! Try making up some names to refer to the Warhammer(TM)®© franchise without actually using the word Warhammer(TM)®©. It's more fun than you think! More fun than Warhammer(TM)®© Online anyway.
Thanks for your support of the Warhammer(TM)®© franchise.
Sincerely,
Games Workshop.
* No matter how much you wish to use them, Battlesmasher Alliance, Fightmace Alliance, and Pewpewbangbang Friends are registered trademark copyright properties of Games Workshop and may not be used for any reason whatsoever in any third party materials.
I'm kind of hesitant to reply. I see a kind of discrepancy, but I'm not quite sure how to explain it, or how to rectify it. So I'm just going to do my best to describe what I see.
As it stands, buying software is kind of like buying music. And neither is really anything like buying, for example, cake. While a lot of slashdotters support Software as a Service, very few, if any, would support Music as a Service. Why? We want to own media content, but we don't really care about owning software, just using it. But both are very similar. We can't ever actually own either. Other people own copyrights or patents on them. In both cases, when we "buy" the product, we're actually just buying a license to use that product. We don't own the product, we just have a license to use it under certain conditions. Same goes for games.
Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be. On the one hand, I hate not being able to copy my music across devices. I hate having to be connected to the internet to be able to play a certain game. On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish.
SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. Would the same model applied to music or games not work? Why wouldn't it work? Is it just a conceptual problem (i.e., we have this idea that we should "own" music or games that we pay for)? What if it was marketed appropriately (i.e., just honestly tell people that they're simply paying for a license to play the game or listen to music on the licenser's terms, instead of implying that paying for it = owning it), would that solve the problem?
Thinking about all of this is making my head hurt. I have no idea what the actual solution should be. There are arguments to be made on every side, and I'm not in a particularly good position to make any of those arguments. I just wanted to get the conversation started.
What are the benefits and drawbacks of SaaS? How would that be fundamentally different from MaaS or GaaS?
Having actually played the game, getting a perfect game is not easy.
You have to get 27 straight outs. You get an out one of two ways: 1) you strike out the batter, or 2) the batter hits the ball and your defence gets the batter out. Complicating things further, it gets progressively harder to pitch accurately when your pitcher gets tired (after you hit about 80 pitches, you have less than half a second to complete the pitching gesture. After 100 pitches, good luck getting a good pitch off even if you pull off the gesture under a quarter of a second).
So you have to weigh whether you want to focus on strike outs and risk getting your pitch count too high to handle, or you focus on trying to get the batter to hit into the defence and keep your pitch count low. If you try to pitch to hit, you risk having a ball just dribble by your infield or having a blooper drop in between your infield and outfield, ruining your game. Adding to the frustration is a buggy infield AI that sometimes allows soft liners through, or the first baseman running for a ball that should've been the second baseman's thus leaving first base empty.
In any event, minus the buggy infield AI, the perfect game challenge highlighted something very important for MLB 2K10. When you're pitching, it is a pretty immersive experience. You really feel the pressure when you're delivering the pitch, and you have that split second of helplessness and frustration when the batter makes solid contact with the ball.
Pitching is definitely the highlight of the game, and the reward did a pretty good job to draw attention to that. Although we can't speak to the financial success of the campaign without any sales stats, it was at least a success in the sense that it was effective in showcasing the strongest aspect of the game.
I'm not sure exactly how you protect against that. The software is meant to detect a certain trigger and complete certain actions based on that trigger. It seems in principle impossible for the software to figure out the reasons behind the trigger occurring (how do you tell the difference between an aggressive speculative trade and a typo when they both result in the same thing? Namely, selling off $X amount of shares.). This is not just a problem with software, but you can imagine humans doing the same thing. They see a huge sell off of a certain stock and need to make a quick on-the-spot decision on whether to hold or sell. Maybe the seller figured out something was going on in the company. Maybe it was a typo. You can't know for sure.
So it seems less like a problem with the software, and more like just a side effect of a speculative trading model.
Just because they're, as you put it, hypothetical situations, it doesn't mean that it's in principle impossible to figure out lost sales to some degree of accuracy. We use subjunctive (or counterfactual) conditionals (as opposed to material conditionals) all the time in every day life. "If I were a lizard, I would be a reptile" is a subjunctive conditional statement that we can evaluate to a very good degree of accuracy.
Indeed, most scientific conclusions are made in the subjunctive. "We have completed various tests and found the diffraction index of this transparent solution to be $X. Therefore, if light were to travel through this solution, then it would behave like $Y." We tend to think that these scientific subjunctives can be an accurate description of what could have happened.
So it can't be just because we're talking about the subjunctive that it is in principle impossible to evaluate lost sales accurately. There must be some other reason why we can't figure out lost sales, if you were to make that claim.
I'm not an expert in statistics or economics, but I'm willing to guess that a sufficiently robust statistical model of the economics of media/game purchases can predict lost sales to an acceptable degree of accuracy.