I don't see any claims you make that contradicts the ones in the article. Being mainstream media, it is possible that they got some of the scientific nuances wrong, but even so there is an explanation after the "deluding yourself" bit which is only about making things more this way, or less that way, or reduce the probability of some events. It doesn't say one can't consider oneself more productive than others at 63, or cannot believe "suits me just fine".
Sometimes specific actions only change the probability of some events - you sleeping more could have reduced your probability of a heart attack per year, say, from 1% per year to 0.01 % per year. But since 1% per year in itself means you can live hundreds of years without getting a heart attack, on a sample size of a single person , one cannot possibly observe anything of value here. If that is the case, your "suits me just fine" is wrong. In which case, you don't even have a semblance of an argument.
In other words, not having had a heart attack at the age of 63 (or even 630) does not mean some of your actions are not increasing the probability of a heart attack.
I am not even saying you need to or can do anything about it. Just that your bullshit call is not justified at all.
That is correct, but it still doesn't mean that your original calling of bullshit is scientifically valid. Maybe optimal for you is 0.289334385 hours, maybe optimal for you is 12.86498963 hours. Maybe 9.84689923 is better than 6.008768934 hours for playing football, but 4.873846390 hours per day is better for learning the Arabic language.
I put some ways of making these observations scientific here : https://slashdot.org/comments...., it all applies to you too. Or it could at least help you realize why your observations aren't rigorously scientific.
If they are not too scientific, you could have those opinions still. But they are useless for others because they would need to borrow your body, mind and thoughts to have similar sleep requirements.
You might say that, but do you have scientific evidence ? You'll have to :
1. Compensate for the placebo effect - what if you have the headaches and lethargy because you think sleeping more than 6 hours is bad for you? One way for doing this is to make you think you slept 6 hours but you actually sleep 8 hours. If sleeping 8 hours is not physiologically possible for you, first that would need to be fixed. If it can't be fixed, the conclusion is that it is unknown how well an 8 hour sleep schedule works for you.
2. Less productive? What if placebo effect is working here? What if you evaluate you productivity as low because you know you slept more than 6 hours ? Productivity will have to be defined more objectively for that statement to make any sense in science.
3. Different levels of how deep you are sleeping could affect your results. You will have to measure that too to be more scientifically rigorous.
You could just call it electromagnetic radiation. There is nothing thermal about it, except that the usual source we use to generate the radiation uses thermal methods.
If you take a charged particle in your hand and move it really really fast simply harmonically, you could generate infrared radiation. Go faster, and even X-ray is possible.
It was using 90 times the data even if I consider a quite stupid algorithm to sync. Which means 0.5 MB , synced twice a day, both times the file is once uploaded fully and once downloaded fully, making a total of 2 MB. It used 180 MB - 90 times 2 MB.
Now maybe dropbox needs to use a minimum of 175 MB for its own purposes and to sync 8 GB dropbox might take only 8 GB + 175 MB.
But I wonder how much spying 175 MB per day could accomplish for dropbox. Because they never reply to this type of questions on their customer support or user forums.
$40/month divided by 8 GB/mo is $5 per GB, as I estimated. That can still be expensive for moving multi-GB video files around.
Do you find Dropbox efficient with bandwidth usage? I found half MB file updated twice a day using 180 MB per day (upload + download) in connections to domains of Amazon and Dropbox. Consistently for days. Headless dropbox on a server with only Dropbox as a window to outer internet.
It means nothing. Really. Risk is probability times the cost of the event. Cost of a life is huge, for the owner of that life at least.
If the probability of being killed is 1% per year, the area would be called extremely unsafe. Even then 99% of people will say they were not killed after spending a year in the locality, and dead men tell no tales. Every person will say they were not killed after spending 1 year in one of the most dangerous places for homicides. Which is why your statement means nothing.
Even when it is not about death, 99% people saying nothing happened to them can still point to a pretty dangerous place.
Yes, but don't you think they are going to dogs in the post 3 TB era ?
I have only bought 20 hard disks in my life, but the oldest 13 are still working. (Though oldest 3 are PATA, lost the adapter for that 7 years ago). Only in the post 3 TB era, 3 of my 7 have failed, all within 3 years of purchase. SMART has bad things to say about 1 of the remaining 4.
I don't see 5 years warranty on cheap hard disks any more either, so the manufacturers know it. Seagate reduced the commonest warranty from 3 years to 1 year, and now increased back to 2 years.
I am looking for another medium, or waiting for hard disks to stabilize.
Ok, glanced through it, not sure what it is supposed to contribute to this discussion. Same old - Americans and their puppets saying China did this and that. What matters is what China says China owes to the US of America due to the "theft of the intellectual property".
Are you going to answer the questions in my points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above ? Mostly yes / no questions , others merely a less vague restatement of your own assertions. E.g. if you are sure of liability, it should not be difficult to name the law that causes the said liability in a specific example when presented with specific evidences, right ?
I do see that now you mention "morally and legally guilty", so you are not really as sure as you need to appear to be.
The other reason personal data is valuable to companies is that it can be used to guess, with increasing accuracy :
1. The politician he is going to vote for. The politician we have currently given power to kill / detain / silence people without evidence, for our own safety of course, can certainly put that information to good use.
2. The place one is at a given time, or will be. It is easier and safer to kill or otherwise harm people at some places rather than at others.
Politics and crime (sometimes the same thing) have inspired a lot of wealth. Are you sure your misunderstanding of it is not gross ?
News flash: Companies and governments, including banks, are liable for what their employees do
Ok, one at a time, and with proper definition of "liable".
1. Bank employee commits a murder for personal purposes. Are you saying the Bank will be tried for murder, and in death penalty states an electric chair be invented for the "Bank" ?
2. Citibank employee steals data from State Bank of Pakistan for personal purposes. Citibank says sorry, we have fired him. Under what law will Citibank be "liable" above saying sorry? And "liable" means Citibank will be fined for the expected value of the data stolen by the now ex-employee plus punitive damages?
3. Citibank employee steals data from ING for personal purposes. Citibank says sorry, we have fired him. Under what law will Citibank be "liable" above saying sorry? And "liable" means Citibank will be fined for the expected value of the data stolen by the now ex-employee plus punitive damages?
4. Citibank employee steals data from ING , acting for Citibank. But ING or anyone else cannot prove that Citibank made the employee do that, and the employee didn't act on his own. As far as "proven beyond reasonable doubt" measure of criminal law, this case 4 is indistinguishable from case 3 above.
Citibank says sorry, we have fired him. Under what law will Citibank be "liable" above saying sorry? And "liable" means Citibank will be fined for the expected value of the data stolen by the now ex-employee plus punitive damages?
The US doesn't need to prove that China is actively stealing IP from the US, there is literally a mountain of evidence, you only don't know this if you have been hiding under a rock for the last 20 years. In many cases there is direct evidence tying the theft to the Chinese government. In many cases there is direct evidence tying the theft to the Chinese government.
Evidence under which epistemology ? If under all epistemologies , call up the high-commissioner or envoy of China and ask for damages. If under only your own epistemology, how is it relevant outside of your dreams ?
The question is : can you convince China that they did it and that they should pay damages ? If yes, there is no problem. If not, you have no solution.
I outlined to methods for inflicting financial penalties. Hopefully that will get them to stop before we have to take drastic action.
No you didn't , except a thoroughly debunked initial post. Au contraire, you expressly stated : "but right now there is no mechanism to recover against China for their rampant state sponsored theft".
If you are now talking about some "now" that is not exactly "right now", give me the argument. Though the nows that are not exactly right nows could be your dreams, so one can never know what that entails.
You have not explained properly why the US credit rating will not be affected, and how China will be convinced that this is legitimate confiscation of their property.
The full answer is, always when it is about the future, "we don't know". Which is why we can base our actions only on a reasonable expectation.
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future -- Niels Bohr.
Wasn't GP's statement here qualified well enough - including the words "unlikely" and "reasonable possibility" in the right places to get you to avoid stating the "we don't know" truism ?
Basically you have to time the prediction such that you earn all your profits from the prediction before the predicted time comes. In the case of this prediction of yours, if you earn all your profits before tomorrow, your problem is solved.
No, because the bank would disown its employees. China would disown its "agents" which are dual citizens, sympathizers or mercenaries.
Now if you could prove beyond doubt that the bank's management was instrumental in sending the employees for stealing any car, it might work. But you'll have to do it in a court of law of which the bank falls under the jurisdiction.
That doesn't work against China because they do not fall under any court's jurisdiction. ICJ is a joke. You could sue China in Chinese courts, but that sounds funny to my ears, not sure about yours.
So what ? If a smartphone app makes it easy to use food stamps, or makes it possible to use food stamps better, I might :
1. pool with 20 poor people like me to get a smartphone.
2. Or pay someone 10 cents to install it on their phone to give me the required information.
3. Or simulate Android on my laptop (which I need to earn a living, today or tomorrow) and install that app.
4. That app might have a web version, (I am not sure) , having the same back-end code as that of the app. Existence of this app incentivizes the creation of that web version. The web version can be accessed from someone else's smart phone with their permission, some computer , public library etc.
That isn't scientific advice, it's just common-sense guidelines.
When the subject is about science, why is the discussion not scientific ? Who asked for common-sense guidelines ? Even the original post that I was replying to (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11051407&cid=55110321), was pretending to sciency all the way till near the end.
Where it degenerated into anti-science, non-falsifiable claims, begging the question and assorted logical fallacies. Which gives me an impression that the preceding sciency-ness might have been a false pretense, though I can't be sure.
And you're so sure that you didn't even define "go wrong", or define " real food ", or define " essential nutrients ", or even present any evidence for your claims.
It's not what? You're not the one who said "it's not that hard" ? Or are you now saying that it is not "not that hard ".
Unless you define "working" , you can't choose something that has been working.
If working is defined to be the diet to avoid metabolic syndrome, nothing has been working in the developed world. In rest of the world, lifestyle is not comparable so can't conclude anything. You have rejected science until it is "settled" (btw that is never) so anthropology as a solution to what prehistoric man ate is also ruled out.
If you now say it is not hard, then, yeah, solving NP hard problems in polynomial time is easy. Just do something else until someone solves it for you.
Your fundamental problem here is that you're looking for something that doesn't yet exist
You are the one who said "it's not that hard", not me. Which is why I have been repeating this claim of yours. If it is not hard, prove that you, or multiple other people know the answer. If the answer does not yet exist, stop claiming it is not hard.
Any definition of "hard" that a reasonable person can agree with will include what no one has yet been able to do.
A healthy way to lose weight is different than a healthy way to eat permanently
This is not true, if the way is defined as a function of your parameters e.g. weight, state, age etc. Then, the "way" will remain the same whether during or after the project of losing weight is complete.
The "way" must be defined as a function of parameters , or at least, work for multiple weights of the same person, because during the project of weight loss the weight must change if the project is anywhere close to success.
Now given that the "way" has worked for the full duration of weight loss project, it is but natural for it to work at the end state i.e. after having lost the weight.
Here, "work" is defined such as to not make the subject unhealthy, and if already unhealthy move the subject towards better health. Why?
1. That is the principle by which it brought the subject to a better weight in the first place.
2. If these 2 conditions were not met, it wouldn't be a good diet even during the weight loss project.
I didn't define f itself, so why are you surprised I didn't define the parameters of f? The parameters I did mention were examples. When talking about functions in general, one cannot possibly discuss parameters in concrete because then it would necessarily be talking about specific functions - the ones that work with that set of parameters.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any claims you make that contradicts the ones in the article. Being mainstream media, it is possible that they got some of the scientific nuances wrong, but even so there is an explanation after the "deluding yourself" bit which is only about making things more this way, or less that way, or reduce the probability of some events. It doesn't say one can't consider oneself more productive than others at 63, or cannot believe "suits me just fine".
Sometimes specific actions only change the probability of some events - you sleeping more could have reduced your probability of a heart attack per year, say, from 1% per year to 0.01 % per year. But since 1% per year in itself means you can live hundreds of years without getting a heart attack, on a sample size of a single person , one cannot possibly observe anything of value here. If that is the case, your "suits me just fine" is wrong. In which case, you don't even have a semblance of an argument.
In other words, not having had a heart attack at the age of 63 (or even 630) does not mean some of your actions are not increasing the probability of a heart attack.
I am not even saying you need to or can do anything about it. Just that your bullshit call is not justified at all.
That is correct, but it still doesn't mean that your original calling of bullshit is scientifically valid. Maybe optimal for you is 0.289334385 hours, maybe optimal for you is 12.86498963 hours. Maybe 9.84689923 is better than 6.008768934 hours for playing football, but 4.873846390 hours per day is better for learning the Arabic language.
I put some ways of making these observations scientific here : https://slashdot.org/comments...., it all applies to you too. Or it could at least help you realize why your observations aren't rigorously scientific.
If they are not too scientific, you could have those opinions still. But they are useless for others because they would need to borrow your body, mind and thoughts to have similar sleep requirements.
You might say that, but do you have scientific evidence ? You'll have to :
1. Compensate for the placebo effect - what if you have the headaches and lethargy because you think sleeping more than 6 hours is bad for you? One way for doing this is to make you think you slept 6 hours but you actually sleep 8 hours. If sleeping 8 hours is not physiologically possible for you, first that would need to be fixed. If it can't be fixed, the conclusion is that it is unknown how well an 8 hour sleep schedule works for you.
2. Less productive? What if placebo effect is working here? What if you evaluate you productivity as low because you know you slept more than 6 hours ? Productivity will have to be defined more objectively for that statement to make any sense in science.
3. Different levels of how deep you are sleeping could affect your results. You will have to measure that too to be more scientifically rigorous.
You could just call it electromagnetic radiation. There is nothing thermal about it, except that the usual source we use to generate the radiation uses thermal methods.
If you take a charged particle in your hand and move it really really fast simply harmonically, you could generate infrared radiation. Go faster, and even X-ray is possible.
You could sequester the carbon from atmospheric CO2 with enough surplus power.
It was using 90 times the data even if I consider a quite stupid algorithm to sync. Which means 0.5 MB , synced twice a day, both times the file is once uploaded fully and once downloaded fully, making a total of 2 MB. It used 180 MB - 90 times 2 MB.
Now maybe dropbox needs to use a minimum of 175 MB for its own purposes and to sync 8 GB dropbox might take only 8 GB + 175 MB.
But I wonder how much spying 175 MB per day could accomplish for dropbox. Because they never reply to this type of questions on their customer support or user forums.
$40/month divided by 8 GB/mo is $5 per GB, as I estimated. That can still be expensive for moving multi-GB video files around.
Do you find Dropbox efficient with bandwidth usage? I found half MB file updated twice a day using 180 MB per day (upload + download) in connections to domains of Amazon and Dropbox. Consistently for days. Headless dropbox on a server with only Dropbox as a window to outer internet.
It means nothing. Really. Risk is probability times the cost of the event. Cost of a life is huge, for the owner of that life at least.
If the probability of being killed is 1% per year, the area would be called extremely unsafe. Even then 99% of people will say they were not killed after spending a year in the locality, and dead men tell no tales. Every person will say they were not killed after spending 1 year in one of the most dangerous places for homicides. Which is why your statement means nothing.
Even when it is not about death, 99% people saying nothing happened to them can still point to a pretty dangerous place.
So sure that you have nothing to day about the other aspect of wealth that I pointed out. Kudos.
Yes, but don't you think they are going to dogs in the post 3 TB era ?
I have only bought 20 hard disks in my life, but the oldest 13 are still working. (Though oldest 3 are PATA, lost the adapter for that 7 years ago). Only in the post 3 TB era, 3 of my 7 have failed, all within 3 years of purchase. SMART has bad things to say about 1 of the remaining 4.
I don't see 5 years warranty on cheap hard disks any more either, so the manufacturers know it. Seagate reduced the commonest warranty from 3 years to 1 year, and now increased back to 2 years.
I am looking for another medium, or waiting for hard disks to stabilize.
Ok, glanced through it, not sure what it is supposed to contribute to this discussion. Same old - Americans and their puppets saying China did this and that. What matters is what China says China owes to the US of America due to the "theft of the intellectual property".
Are you going to answer the questions in my points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above ? Mostly yes / no questions , others merely a less vague restatement of your own assertions. E.g. if you are sure of liability, it should not be difficult to name the law that causes the said liability in a specific example when presented with specific evidences, right ?
I do see that now you mention "morally and legally guilty", so you are not really as sure as you need to appear to be.
The other reason personal data is valuable to companies is that it can be used to guess, with increasing accuracy :
1. The politician he is going to vote for. The politician we have currently given power to kill / detain / silence people without evidence, for our own safety of course, can certainly put that information to good use.
2. The place one is at a given time, or will be. It is easier and safer to kill or otherwise harm people at some places rather than at others.
Politics and crime (sometimes the same thing) have inspired a lot of wealth. Are you sure your misunderstanding of it is not gross ?
News flash: Companies and governments, including banks, are liable for what their employees do
Ok, one at a time, and with proper definition of "liable".
1. Bank employee commits a murder for personal purposes. Are you saying the Bank will be tried for murder, and in death penalty states an electric chair be invented for the "Bank" ?
2. Citibank employee steals data from State Bank of Pakistan for personal purposes. Citibank says sorry, we have fired him. Under what law will Citibank be "liable" above saying sorry? And "liable" means Citibank will be fined for the expected value of the data stolen by the now ex-employee plus punitive damages?
3. Citibank employee steals data from ING for personal purposes. Citibank says sorry, we have fired him. Under what law will Citibank be "liable" above saying sorry? And "liable" means Citibank will be fined for the expected value of the data stolen by the now ex-employee plus punitive damages?
4. Citibank employee steals data from ING , acting for Citibank. But ING or anyone else cannot prove that Citibank made the employee do that, and the employee didn't act on his own. As far as "proven beyond reasonable doubt" measure of criminal law, this case 4 is indistinguishable from case 3 above.
Citibank says sorry, we have fired him. Under what law will Citibank be "liable" above saying sorry? And "liable" means Citibank will be fined for the expected value of the data stolen by the now ex-employee plus punitive damages?
The US doesn't need to prove that China is actively stealing IP from the US, there is literally a mountain of evidence, you only don't know this if you have been hiding under a rock for the last 20 years. In many cases there is direct evidence tying the theft to the Chinese government. In many cases there is direct evidence tying the theft to the Chinese government.
Evidence under which epistemology ? If under all epistemologies , call up the high-commissioner or envoy of China and ask for damages. If under only your own epistemology, how is it relevant outside of your dreams ?
The question is : can you convince China that they did it and that they should pay damages ? If yes, there is no problem. If not, you have no solution.
I outlined to methods for inflicting financial penalties. Hopefully that will get them to stop before we have to take drastic action.
No you didn't , except a thoroughly debunked initial post. Au contraire, you expressly stated : "but right now there is no mechanism to recover against China for their rampant state sponsored theft".
If you are now talking about some "now" that is not exactly "right now", give me the argument. Though the nows that are not exactly right nows could be your dreams, so one can never know what that entails.
You have not explained properly why the US credit rating will not be affected, and how China will be convinced that this is legitimate confiscation of their property.
This is only true for doomsday predictions. I was talking about all predictions - whether or not you have a clue about the subject matter.
The full answer is, always when it is about the future, "we don't know". Which is why we can base our actions only on a reasonable expectation.
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future -- Niels Bohr.
Wasn't GP's statement here qualified well enough - including the words "unlikely" and "reasonable possibility" in the right places to get you to avoid stating the "we don't know" truism ?
Basically you have to time the prediction such that you earn all your profits from the prediction before the predicted time comes. In the case of this prediction of yours, if you earn all your profits before tomorrow, your problem is solved.
No, because the bank would disown its employees. China would disown its "agents" which are dual citizens, sympathizers or mercenaries.
Now if you could prove beyond doubt that the bank's management was instrumental in sending the employees for stealing any car, it might work. But you'll have to do it in a court of law of which the bank falls under the jurisdiction.
That doesn't work against China because they do not fall under any court's jurisdiction. ICJ is a joke. You could sue China in Chinese courts, but that sounds funny to my ears, not sure about yours.
India just did an enormously idiotic thing : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
However stupid your country is, you'll always have India to look down upon.
So what ? If a smartphone app makes it easy to use food stamps, or makes it possible to use food stamps better, I might :
1. pool with 20 poor people like me to get a smartphone.
2. Or pay someone 10 cents to install it on their phone to give me the required information.
3. Or simulate Android on my laptop (which I need to earn a living, today or tomorrow) and install that app.
4. That app might have a web version, (I am not sure) , having the same back-end code as that of the app. Existence of this app incentivizes the creation of that web version. The web version can be accessed from someone else's smart phone with their permission, some computer , public library etc.
That isn't scientific advice, it's just common-sense guidelines.
When the subject is about science, why is the discussion not scientific ? Who asked for common-sense guidelines ? Even the original post that I was replying to (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11051407&cid=55110321), was pretending to sciency all the way till near the end.
Where it degenerated into anti-science, non-falsifiable claims, begging the question and assorted logical fallacies. Which gives me an impression that the preceding sciency-ness might have been a false pretense, though I can't be sure.
And you're so sure that you didn't even define "go wrong", or define " real food ", or define " essential nutrients ", or even present any evidence for your claims.
It's not what? You're not the one who said "it's not that hard" ? Or are you now saying that it is not "not that hard ".
Unless you define "working" , you can't choose something that has been working.
If working is defined to be the diet to avoid metabolic syndrome, nothing has been working in the developed world. In rest of the world, lifestyle is not comparable so can't conclude anything. You have rejected science until it is "settled" (btw that is never) so anthropology as a solution to what prehistoric man ate is also ruled out.
If you now say it is not hard, then, yeah, solving NP hard problems in polynomial time is easy. Just do something else until someone solves it for you.
Your fundamental problem here is that you're looking for something that doesn't yet exist
You are the one who said "it's not that hard", not me. Which is why I have been repeating this claim of yours. If it is not hard, prove that you, or multiple other people know the answer. If the answer does not yet exist, stop claiming it is not hard.
Any definition of "hard" that a reasonable person can agree with will include what no one has yet been able to do.
A healthy way to lose weight is different than a healthy way to eat permanently
This is not true, if the way is defined as a function of your parameters e.g. weight, state, age etc. Then, the "way" will remain the same whether during or after the project of losing weight is complete.
The "way" must be defined as a function of parameters , or at least, work for multiple weights of the same person, because during the project of weight loss the weight must change if the project is anywhere close to success.
Now given that the "way" has worked for the full duration of weight loss project, it is but natural for it to work at the end state i.e. after having lost the weight.
Here, "work" is defined such as to not make the subject unhealthy, and if already unhealthy move the subject towards better health. Why?
1. That is the principle by which it brought the subject to a better weight in the first place.
2. If these 2 conditions were not met, it wouldn't be a good diet even during the weight loss project.
I didn't define f itself, so why are you surprised I didn't define the parameters of f? The parameters I did mention were examples. When talking about functions in general, one cannot possibly discuss parameters in concrete because then it would necessarily be talking about specific functions - the ones that work with that set of parameters.