Do you honestly think you opinion is so important that companies would actually bother spending money to astroturf slashdot? That people who disagree with you don't do so because they think you are wrong but because they are paid to???
That's exactly the behaviour I want. If an installer is doing things to system files, I don't care if its signed by baba gunush, I want to be able to tell it no. I've been using win7 for some time now and I have not found the UAC to be annoying at all.
I would be more willing to hire someone that made a choice like that - shows good judgement. Turned down something that helped him in the short run for long term concerns.
But does that not also result in boring and dry text? If the aim of your writing is to convey a message, and (at least for myself) boring bits of text are a lot harder to remember then mission failure. Think of metaphors and colourful text as multipliers. They are good when they amplify a high base score, but useless on their own.
Presumably he is holding back government analysis of this rather than independent surveys. It was quite a shame - we need all the AGs to agree to make a change to the ratings system and everyone was willing to do it but this retard. As a result no change!
While what you say is true, how do you reconcile it with the inevitability that as science gets more complex the number of people who fully understand any given topic decreases? Should we maintain an ambivalence towards any number of competing hypotheses when experts in the field suggest otherwise?
Basically what I am saying is that the situation you encountered is normal, and the question therefore (in topic of too much complexity for the average person) is not to know the answer but to know who's opinion on the answer you trust. And to evaluate this you have to look at the methodology they use to arrive at the answer.
I disagree - ridicule is a powerful way of socially marginalising people and discouraging other people from taking them seriously. God (in the common religious sense, not the abstract philosophical sense) has been unable to fit in our current scientific knowledge about the world for quite some time, but this has not stopped nonsense from being believed. While it is important not to stoop to dishonesty and etc, all those who are scientific leaders of a kind have to be forceful in calling out folk who peddle nonsense rather than simply ignore them.
That story about the speed of light sounds like bullshit. Couldn't find any mention of it on the inter-web, and wikipedia has no mention of it. Citation plz.
I see posts like this an I wonder what your problem is? Its not like its misstating the nature of the US, and the term democracy is more descriptive of what its like. When the constitution was written the country was a republic in the then-sense with women, blacks and the poor having no right to vote. Now they do - hence democracy is a better way of describing it. Goodnight!
Wow. This post is horrific. Why did you bother replying if you aren't actually discussing his post?
Moral relativism, Xbox as a right, mass graves.... you've enough straw-men to make an army here.
This just illustrates the need for children to be taught at school about what constitutes a good argument, and how to properly argue for your ideas.
I don't even disagree with the basic position you are taking, but any advocate of your position, upon reading this would shoot themselves from the horror.
If an entire country's police and army cannot save some dictators then I don't believe bodyguards would do much to mitigate the rage of the people should the crime warrant it.
That's what I mean - but didn't make clear. Everything would be in the open - the good and the bad. Note that I'm not necessarily for this if it was possible to maintain anonymity - but the direction we are heading is certainty not amenable to it. If the powerful will have access to all information that we can pre-empt it in a way that at least evens the playing field.
Sorry if this is not the case - but whenever I hear this I have a mental image that the perfectly accurate revision involves some kind of govt/alien conspiracy.
I think generally the powerful have more to gain from anonymity then the poor. If it was ever possible to air everyone's dirty laundry I think I would welcome it.
Re:Is really a bad, bad idea...
on
NASA May Outsource
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I wouldn't think so - the amount of adaptability required for the actions would preclude a straight calculation (tiny variations would blow out) - it would more likely be some kind of neural network based approach.
What does it mean to focus or relax your consciousness? How does this differ from any other state of consciousness? Just being conscious of an event does not mean that you control it. I don't know how epistemology comes into play here.
I'm not sure where to start with the second statement. Given the current technology, a deterministic agent cannot sense his determinism, likewise a free willed agent can never tell if his actions are his own or due to something else. Imagine yourself as a complex but deterministic agent - how would the world be different?
Free will is simply the ability to control (instigate) your actions - likewise, no free will means that you make actions as a direct result of other things acting upon you.
The human brain is a complex organ and there is a temptation due to this to believe magical things are going on inside. However if the forces of the universe (including its causal nature) as we understand them hold for the brain as they do for similar objects then nothing inside that organ can instigate actions on its own. It can only serve as a complex device for taking in inputs from the environment (including stochasticity) and turn them into actions. Hence this leads me to conclude that free will cannot exist, barring some radical development in the sciences.
What makes you think they chose?
In seriousness some of the arguments here are very poor
Just become something is non-deterministic does not make it free-will compatible. If a quantum fluctuation, random dice roll or baba gunush causes the life you lead that doesn't make it any better than a straight equation.
Determinism doesn't mean you don't make choices, its just means that the answer you give to those choices could have been predicted 100% beforehand if theoretically you had ALL the information about the universe at time 0 (whatever that is).
If determinism is true then it doesn't change the world very much at all. People will still be sent to jail for their crimes (rehabilitation and deterrent are all still valid).
Slashdot Mirror
Take that munroe doctorine!
Do you honestly think you opinion is so important that companies would actually bother spending money to astroturf slashdot? That people who disagree with you don't do so because they think you are wrong but because they are paid to???
To me that just sounds egotistical.
That's exactly the behaviour I want. If an installer is doing things to system files, I don't care if its signed by baba gunush, I want to be able to tell it no. I've been using win7 for some time now and I have not found the UAC to be annoying at all.
I would be more willing to hire someone that made a choice like that - shows good judgement. Turned down something that helped him in the short run for long term concerns.
But does that not also result in boring and dry text? If the aim of your writing is to convey a message, and (at least for myself) boring bits of text are a lot harder to remember then mission failure. Think of metaphors and colourful text as multipliers. They are good when they amplify a high base score, but useless on their own.
Next on the list is magical stones inside of an opera singer
Urban myth, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Pen#Uses_in_the_U.S._and_Russian_space_programs
Presumably he is holding back government analysis of this rather than independent surveys. It was quite a shame - we need all the AGs to agree to make a change to the ratings system and everyone was willing to do it but this retard. As a result no change!
While what you say is true, how do you reconcile it with the inevitability that as science gets more complex the number of people who fully understand any given topic decreases? Should we maintain an ambivalence towards any number of competing hypotheses when experts in the field suggest otherwise?
Basically what I am saying is that the situation you encountered is normal, and the question therefore (in topic of too much complexity for the average person) is not to know the answer but to know who's opinion on the answer you trust. And to evaluate this you have to look at the methodology they use to arrive at the answer.
Anyway just my thoughts.
I disagree - ridicule is a powerful way of socially marginalising people and discouraging other people from taking them seriously. God (in the common religious sense, not the abstract philosophical sense) has been unable to fit in our current scientific knowledge about the world for quite some time, but this has not stopped nonsense from being believed. While it is important not to stoop to dishonesty and etc, all those who are scientific leaders of a kind have to be forceful in calling out folk who peddle nonsense rather than simply ignore them.
That story about the speed of light sounds like bullshit. Couldn't find any mention of it on the inter-web, and wikipedia has no mention of it. Citation plz.
But how long before they partition the capsule!
The amount of straw that goes into these straw-men could be used to feed all the cattle in the world.
I see posts like this an I wonder what your problem is? Its not like its misstating the nature of the US, and the term democracy is more descriptive of what its like. When the constitution was written the country was a republic in the then-sense with women, blacks and the poor having no right to vote. Now they do - hence democracy is a better way of describing it. Goodnight!
Wow. This post is horrific. Why did you bother replying if you aren't actually discussing his post?
Moral relativism, Xbox as a right, mass graves.... you've enough straw-men to make an army here.
This just illustrates the need for children to be taught at school about what constitutes a good argument, and how to properly argue for your ideas.
I don't even disagree with the basic position you are taking, but any advocate of your position, upon reading this would shoot themselves from the horror.
I don't think you have read the sentence you are quoting.
If an entire country's police and army cannot save some dictators then I don't believe bodyguards would do much to mitigate the rage of the people should the crime warrant it.
That's what I mean - but didn't make clear. Everything would be in the open - the good and the bad. Note that I'm not necessarily for this if it was possible to maintain anonymity - but the direction we are heading is certainty not amenable to it. If the powerful will have access to all information that we can pre-empt it in a way that at least evens the playing field.
Sorry if this is not the case - but whenever I hear this I have a mental image that the perfectly accurate revision involves some kind of govt/alien conspiracy.
I think generally the powerful have more to gain from anonymity then the poor. If it was ever possible to air everyone's dirty laundry I think I would welcome it.
This is what happens when you outsource posting!
I wouldn't think so - the amount of adaptability required for the actions would preclude a straight calculation (tiny variations would blow out) - it would more likely be some kind of neural network based approach.
I'm glad you took the time to post that, instead of say, curing cancer.
What exactly do you mean?
What does it mean to focus or relax your consciousness? How does this differ from any other state of consciousness? Just being conscious of an event does not mean that you control it. I don't know how epistemology comes into play here.
I'm not sure where to start with the second statement. Given the current technology, a deterministic agent cannot sense his determinism, likewise a free willed agent can never tell if his actions are his own or due to something else. Imagine yourself as a complex but deterministic agent - how would the world be different?
Free will is simply the ability to control (instigate) your actions - likewise, no free will means that you make actions as a direct result of other things acting upon you.
The human brain is a complex organ and there is a temptation due to this to believe magical things are going on inside. However if the forces of the universe (including its causal nature) as we understand them hold for the brain as they do for similar objects then nothing inside that organ can instigate actions on its own. It can only serve as a complex device for taking in inputs from the environment (including stochasticity) and turn them into actions. Hence this leads me to conclude that free will cannot exist, barring some radical development in the sciences.
What makes you think they chose?
In seriousness some of the arguments here are very poor
Just become something is non-deterministic does not make it free-will compatible. If a quantum fluctuation, random dice roll or baba gunush causes the life you lead that doesn't make it any better than a straight equation.
Determinism doesn't mean you don't make choices, its just means that the answer you give to those choices could have been predicted 100% beforehand if theoretically you had ALL the information about the universe at time 0 (whatever that is).
If determinism is true then it doesn't change the world very much at all. People will still be sent to jail for their crimes (rehabilitation and deterrent are all still valid).