If my parents and community had supported my academic interests as much as they supported my little league career, I'm sure I would have won a lot more spelling bees too.
Two things: 1) Indians aren't "Asians" unless you're from London. 2) Just anecdotally... India has a great track record, culturally, for caring a whole shitload about things that don't matter in the slightest. I think it's a combination of the ambient mysticism that says "anything is possible, even a yogi floating through the air by pure force of prayer or chi-power", and the triviality of most of the many, many, MANY lives there compared with the intelligence of the people and the lack of opportunities. I mean, there are a shit-ton of them, they're just as smart as us but most of them can aspire at best to earn a pittance doing work that in a first world country would put them on a 60k+ a year income. That intelligence just finds something to care about, and you get results like this.
It wouldn't even need to be that much. You know what's really good at cleaning up toxic chemicals? Lungs. I bet you could use cow lungs from abattoirs. Mmmm, lung juice cocktail, even increases stamina!
Seriously though, that sort of behavior is not acceptable.
Oh? Why? It's not my fault that the bozo in the right lane is messing with his phone and leaves a 20m gap in front of him, while everyone behind him is stationary. By using space on the road that's otherwise empty, and doing so in a safe manner, (it's not like I'm forcing my way through or making anyone else slow down) I'm choosing to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
I'm guessing either you're one of those timid drivers who has to sit in a traffic queue and cuss at everyone else because you're afraid to change lanes, or you're thinking of the assholes that actually DO force their way in because they think they're too important to wait around.
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to mention Seldon's work, since it was the first thing that sprung to my mind. I wonder if there's a Chetter Hummin on that team?
Right, it's like traffic: if you alert everyone to a blockage somewhere, and everyone reroutes to avoid it, then the alternative routes will get clogged and the original slowed route will now be empty.
That's exactly what you observe on a freeway. There's a merge coming up in the left lane (Australian here, all you backwards U.S. citizens just pretend I'm ambi-dyslexic:P ) so everyone dives into the rightmost lane, which comes to a stop. The fastest way to get through that section of road is to stay in the leftmost lane until the left and middle lanes merge, then try and find a gap in the right lane where some dozy bastard doesn't keep up with traffic. That way you skip the congestion and get into the right lane just as it frees up.
Hey now, I'm usually accused of being an angry anti-apple troll, and even I think that gizmodo was out of line. Apple employee loses a phone he was road-testing, gizmodo buys it (selling property you don't own is stealing, and buying it is receiving stolen goods), and then they rat the guy out, putting his job in jeopardy. It doesn't count as 'reasonable effort to return stolen goods' that they phoned some sales goon who said "um wat idunno".
If there's an accident, any unsecured passenger becomes a projectile too. I'm not sure I'd rather be hit by a terrified granny than by a gameboy.
There were a couple of cases of very early instrument landing systems and soforth being interfered with by gameboys, and so they instituted a blanket ban on electronics in planes, then reduced it to a ban during takeoff and landing (where you don't have a couple of minutes to run up and down the aisle screaming "turn that thing the fuck off" before you hit the ground). Generally people can live without their gadgetty-doos during the half hour at the start and end of the flight, and so no-one really bothers to do the huge amount of work required to compile a list of "safe" devices. It's just easier to say "keep your elbows and knees inside the plane". The cellphone ban is exactly what was said earlier, that being on a plane puts you in LoS of a large and rapidly changing number of phone towers and confuses the GSM network. I dunno how well 3G handles it. Aren't some modern planes starting to run their own GSM towers inside the plane anyway?
Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?
Because culturally we come from a predominantly Christian background. And as it goes, Christianity is pretty good at keeping out of peoples' faces and staying separate from government. Especially compared with, say, Islam, with its direct mandate to impose Sharia law on as much of the world as it can get its hands on.
Actually you should Stress if he's writing FPSes at 12.. because there are other, better, genres of games.
Oh, I'm not a big fan of FPSes, I just used that example because when I was twelve, Doom had just come out, and an FPS was the holy grail of 90% of wannabe game programmers. When I was 15 and trying hard to figure out "how to do 3D", Quake was the one to beat. (I thought there was some wizardry to it, imagine how disappointed I was when I discovered that 90% of 'real' 3D games just used the Painter's Algorithm and/or a z-buffer:P ).
Totally agreed. Hell, I went through a bit of a pupal stage last year and I'm nearly 30, just had a lot of shit that I hadn't yet figured out, then suddenly it all snapped into place and blammo, this year is insanely much better. I just meant that in specific, a lot of the 'personality disorders' in the DSM basically resolve down to 'this person acts like an annoying little kid'.
Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific than that. Precisely how is it a "no true Scotsman" argument? Or did you mean that it isn't a "no true Scotsman" argument, but just vaguely sounds like one to you?
I meant that in relation to your statement that "the plural of anecdote is not data". You seemed to be implying that there was a fundamental difference between "data" about religion deliberately opposing science and mere list of incidences where it occurred. My inference was that there could be no "true" data by this definition because any datum could be dismissed as an anecdote.
Just look at Philosophical Taoism or the non-theistic forms of Buddhism. Or did you think they're not true religions...?
I see what you did there!:P But seriously, it hadn't occurred to me that a philosophy with no belief in any supernatural entity would be considered a religion. It seems like some people do consider any strongly held belief system a religion, though, and by that definition this whole thing is a non-issue because science is a religion too.:P
Children are still developing emotionally and morally, and perfectly healthy children often exhibit sociopathic behaviour. If you laughed *now* when seeing a friend seriously hurt themselves, then I'd be worried.
The problem here is that generally, any falsified claims made by a religion are redefined as "not meant to be taken literally". As I said earlier, it's a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy - all claims by a religion are true unless they're falsifiable (and have been falsified). No matter how many claims are shown to be false, the rest are deemed true.
No, I don't want a list, and neither should you. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". I don't care if some cleric somewhere disagreed with something a scientist said.
This sounds to me like a 'no true Scotsman' argument.
There is an inherent conflict in beliefs between science and religion. Science starts with the assumption that the universe is internally consistent and obeys fixed, rational laws of some sort which are ultimately discoverable and comprehensible by humans. Religion believes that the universe is ultimately mutable by an all-powerful god. Religion also often has an evangelical basis which puts it directly into conflict with non-followers when it attempting to convert them to the religion.
Scientists are to blame because, as scientists, (in the laymans' perspective of the general public) they're supposed to be impartial, and to investigate and test all possibilities. Religion makes no such claims of open-mindedness or rigorousness, and so feels no obligation to play fair.
No, it's not. Pascal's Wager essentially says you should be a Christian, because if Christianity turns out to be right, you're safe, and if it's wrong, you're safe.
And if Islam is right, you're screwed. If I were going to Pascal it up I'd go with Buddhism or Hinduism. Weight of numbers in those cases adds safety just in case we live in a consensus reality too.:)
And if the Hindus are right and there is reincarnation, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than seeking to unify your atman with Brahman...?
And all the questions are the same.. they could have essentially made the whole thing two questions:
1) are you empathetic
2) are you _NOT_ empathetic
Exactly. My thought while taking the test was that it's pretty useless, because true narcissists (with the cluster-B personality disorder) often lack the ability for introspection. They'll THINK they're the most caring, kind-hearted person in the world (because let's face it, they're great people, and great people are caring and kind-hearted, so they MUST be). You should really be asking their friends and family members these questions.
Slashdot Mirror
If my parents and community had supported my academic interests as much as they supported my little league career, I'm sure I would have won a lot more spelling bees too.
Two things: 1) Indians aren't "Asians" unless you're from London. 2) Just anecdotally... India has a great track record, culturally, for caring a whole shitload about things that don't matter in the slightest. I think it's a combination of the ambient mysticism that says "anything is possible, even a yogi floating through the air by pure force of prayer or chi-power", and the triviality of most of the many, many, MANY lives there compared with the intelligence of the people and the lack of opportunities. I mean, there are a shit-ton of them, they're just as smart as us but most of them can aspire at best to earn a pittance doing work that in a first world country would put them on a 60k+ a year income. That intelligence just finds something to care about, and you get results like this.
It wouldn't even need to be that much. You know what's really good at cleaning up toxic chemicals? Lungs. I bet you could use cow lungs from abattoirs. Mmmm, lung juice cocktail, even increases stamina!
Operation Cold Porridge. And then when that fails, their second try will be Operation Cold Porridge 2: Lumpy Chunks.
And, as an added bonus, it makes you an asshole!
Seriously though, that sort of behavior is not acceptable.
Oh? Why? It's not my fault that the bozo in the right lane is messing with his phone and leaves a 20m gap in front of him, while everyone behind him is stationary. By using space on the road that's otherwise empty, and doing so in a safe manner, (it's not like I'm forcing my way through or making anyone else slow down) I'm choosing to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
I'm guessing either you're one of those timid drivers who has to sit in a traffic queue and cuss at everyone else because you're afraid to change lanes, or you're thinking of the assholes that actually DO force their way in because they think they're too important to wait around.
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to mention Seldon's work, since it was the first thing that sprung to my mind. I wonder if there's a Chetter Hummin on that team?
Right, it's like traffic: if you alert everyone to a blockage somewhere, and everyone reroutes to avoid it, then the alternative routes will get clogged and the original slowed route will now be empty.
That's exactly what you observe on a freeway. There's a merge coming up in the left lane (Australian here, all you backwards U.S. citizens just pretend I'm ambi-dyslexic :P ) so everyone dives into the rightmost lane, which comes to a stop. The fastest way to get through that section of road is to stay in the leftmost lane until the left and middle lanes merge, then try and find a gap in the right lane where some dozy bastard doesn't keep up with traffic. That way you skip the congestion and get into the right lane just as it frees up.
Hey now, I'm usually accused of being an angry anti-apple troll, and even I think that gizmodo was out of line. Apple employee loses a phone he was road-testing, gizmodo buys it (selling property you don't own is stealing, and buying it is receiving stolen goods), and then they rat the guy out, putting his job in jeopardy. It doesn't count as 'reasonable effort to return stolen goods' that they phoned some sales goon who said "um wat idunno".
If there's an accident, any unsecured passenger becomes a projectile too. I'm not sure I'd rather be hit by a terrified granny than by a gameboy.
There were a couple of cases of very early instrument landing systems and soforth being interfered with by gameboys, and so they instituted a blanket ban on electronics in planes, then reduced it to a ban during takeoff and landing (where you don't have a couple of minutes to run up and down the aisle screaming "turn that thing the fuck off" before you hit the ground). Generally people can live without their gadgetty-doos during the half hour at the start and end of the flight, and so no-one really bothers to do the huge amount of work required to compile a list of "safe" devices. It's just easier to say "keep your elbows and knees inside the plane". The cellphone ban is exactly what was said earlier, that being on a plane puts you in LoS of a large and rapidly changing number of phone towers and confuses the GSM network. I dunno how well 3G handles it. Aren't some modern planes starting to run their own GSM towers inside the plane anyway?
much less places
many fewer places
Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?
Because culturally we come from a predominantly Christian background. And as it goes, Christianity is pretty good at keeping out of peoples' faces and staying separate from government. Especially compared with, say, Islam, with its direct mandate to impose Sharia law on as much of the world as it can get its hands on.
Actually you should Stress if he's writing FPSes at 12.. because there are other, better, genres of games.
Oh, I'm not a big fan of FPSes, I just used that example because when I was twelve, Doom had just come out, and an FPS was the holy grail of 90% of wannabe game programmers. When I was 15 and trying hard to figure out "how to do 3D", Quake was the one to beat. (I thought there was some wizardry to it, imagine how disappointed I was when I discovered that 90% of 'real' 3D games just used the Painter's Algorithm and/or a z-buffer :P ).
Totally agreed. Hell, I went through a bit of a pupal stage last year and I'm nearly 30, just had a lot of shit that I hadn't yet figured out, then suddenly it all snapped into place and blammo, this year is insanely much better. I just meant that in specific, a lot of the 'personality disorders' in the DSM basically resolve down to 'this person acts like an annoying little kid'.
Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific than that. Precisely how is it a "no true Scotsman" argument? Or did you mean that it isn't a "no true Scotsman" argument, but just vaguely sounds like one to you?
I meant that in relation to your statement that "the plural of anecdote is not data". You seemed to be implying that there was a fundamental difference between "data" about religion deliberately opposing science and mere list of incidences where it occurred. My inference was that there could be no "true" data by this definition because any datum could be dismissed as an anecdote.
Just look at Philosophical Taoism or the non-theistic forms of Buddhism. Or did you think they're not true religions...?
I see what you did there! :P But seriously, it hadn't occurred to me that a philosophy with no belief in any supernatural entity would be considered a religion. It seems like some people do consider any strongly held belief system a religion, though, and by that definition this whole thing is a non-issue because science is a religion too. :P
That was revolting.
I don't care.
My first thought was actually that college students are more honest now than they were last time this was tested.
Children are still developing emotionally and morally, and perfectly healthy children often exhibit sociopathic behaviour. If you laughed *now* when seeing a friend seriously hurt themselves, then I'd be worried.
The problem here is that generally, any falsified claims made by a religion are redefined as "not meant to be taken literally". As I said earlier, it's a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy - all claims by a religion are true unless they're falsifiable (and have been falsified). No matter how many claims are shown to be false, the rest are deemed true.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Sounds like direct endorsement of homosexuality to me.
No, I don't want a list, and neither should you. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". I don't care if some cleric somewhere disagreed with something a scientist said.
This sounds to me like a 'no true Scotsman' argument.
There is an inherent conflict in beliefs between science and religion. Science starts with the assumption that the universe is internally consistent and obeys fixed, rational laws of some sort which are ultimately discoverable and comprehensible by humans. Religion believes that the universe is ultimately mutable by an all-powerful god. Religion also often has an evangelical basis which puts it directly into conflict with non-followers when it attempting to convert them to the religion.
Scientists are to blame because, as scientists, (in the laymans' perspective of the general public) they're supposed to be impartial, and to investigate and test all possibilities. Religion makes no such claims of open-mindedness or rigorousness, and so feels no obligation to play fair.
No, it's not. Pascal's Wager essentially says you should be a Christian, because if Christianity turns out to be right, you're safe, and if it's wrong, you're safe.
And if Islam is right, you're screwed. If I were going to Pascal it up I'd go with Buddhism or Hinduism. Weight of numbers in those cases adds safety just in case we live in a consensus reality too. :)
And if the Hindus are right and there is reincarnation, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than seeking to unify your atman with Brahman...?
I unified Brahman with my atman and got "Batman".
Why focus on fervently opposing religion when there are so many more interesting scientific things to do?
Precisely. Like almost all scientists, I don't "actively oppose" belief in the Tooth Fairy either.
And all the questions are the same.. they could have essentially made the whole thing two questions:
1) are you empathetic 2) are you _NOT_ empathetic
Exactly. My thought while taking the test was that it's pretty useless, because true narcissists (with the cluster-B personality disorder) often lack the ability for introspection. They'll THINK they're the most caring, kind-hearted person in the world (because let's face it, they're great people, and great people are caring and kind-hearted, so they MUST be). You should really be asking their friends and family members these questions.