It would not be sufficient, but the GP was not wrong in calling the GGP wrong, because the GGP said "it may indeed be neceesary to use a proxy or VPN".
That's like saying you can't be a Republican without campaigning against gay marriage. It is, after all, a cornerstone of the official Republican platform.
Despite references to papal infallibility and a highly structured organisation, Catholicisim is generally *not* a literalist religion. One of the fundamentals of Catholicism is that you must follow your conscience, even if your conscience is wrong and/or violates Church teachings ("Primacy of Conscience"). In fact it is sin to do something you believe in your conscience is wrong. Even if the Pope himself comes up and tells you with full authority that it is definitely not a sin to take advantage of a free refills policy, if you feel it's wrong, you don't do it. If Sotomayor believes it's wrong for the law to treat fetuses as morally equivalent to adult humans with respect to right to life, from the instant of conception, then it would be wrong of Sotomayor, as a Catholic, to do so.
They struggle with this, of course, because you can stretch "Primacy of Conscience" to mean anything and it's not supposed to be that loose. But the religion isn't one of sharp boundaries and thin lines between black and white and slavish binary rulesets. This is the religion that inspired the concept of Limbo, after all.
(FWIW I am not a Catholic, and it's no fallacy since I am an atheist and have no memory of being anything else)
How is that relevant? It's not there now, so arguments that Common Core is bad because of their social studies content are incoherent at best and likely dishonest.
If you want to take issue with Common Core social studies, then you have to take issue with that.
I don't know much about Common Core or US education, so I don't know whether Common Core is good or bad, nor whether it is better or worse or a little of both compared to what already exists. But I know that you can't conclude that the US Civil War is being removed from US classes by analyzing a textbook on rhetoric.
The Challenger explosion is often discussed in business classes without analyzing the underlying engineering principles at stake (often disguised so that people won't be biased in their go / no-go decision).
That's a fair point, but I do believe there are also programs that target the impoverished, including white people (mostly white people, just because there's more of them in the country).
This just doesn't happen to be that one.
Analogously, lots of people have problems other than a societal bias against them in tech. That's not what this is trying to solve.
Sometimes we don't try to solve all things for all people at the same time with the same solution.
Drinking and driving was one of the big causes in here, and it is illegal.
Aside from drunk driving, drinking is more likely to end in killing yourself. I think gun deaths are more likely to kill other people (aside from suicide, which I would personally exclude from gun violence statistics, but I know is a large number). Nobody talks about restricting access to guns for your personal health.
Also, the number of people who drink is much higher than the number who have guns handy, so this statistic doesn't really inform whether the threat of gun violence is or is not more deserving of regulation than the thread of excessive drinking deaths. *Also* guns are useful for intimidation in robberies and the like in a way that booze is not -- the negative effect of guns is not just death but also the imminent and credible threat of death. Of course on the flip side there are social ills associated with alcohol that are not generally deadly.
The comparison to pop is a little more sensible. However, even the "sugary drinks" ban people were talking about was nothing like prohibition -- it essentially banned selling in a large cup, without banning bottomless refills. I still think it wasn't quite right, but you're the only one talking about blanket bans. Or children, for that matter.
I am not making any statement on gun control (not derailing an article about drinking deaths) other than that there isn't a comparison that's both simple and reasonable between gun control and prohibition.
On a per capita basis, Canada is far worse than China or Russia and about in line with Canada (as of 2005, so right now I have no reason to suspect that things have changed drastically). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
And the tar sands are helping to supply those US numbers.
It may be very true that if not for the tar sands, the province would be in trouble. That doesn't make it a good thing.
Personally I think it's a bit much to blame Alberta for the entirety of the oil industry. Yes, they are a major seller, but it's a convenient externalization (even for Albertans, since it's "other Albertans"). There's also buyers, and they are everywhere. Especially Alberta:), but everywhere.
It's not at all clear to me that 3 dimensions are harder than 2 for navigation problems. Especially 3 mostly unrestricted dimensions vs. 2 dimensions where you are restricted to roads and certain directions.
It's not entirely clear that VR is going to displace PC gaming to that significant of a degree.
As a fairly avid gamer, most games I play are not in the first person perspective and I don't want them to be. I don't like FPS, and that's a huge portion of all first-person games (though I do like the sort of FPS-stealth-subgenre that encompasses Hitman, Dishonoured, Deus Ex, etc., and I can see how VR would be an asset there).
Platformers, most RPGs (the Elder Scrolls series is a popular exception, but I have never liked them), strategy and/or tactics games, most adventure games, most puzzle games, most "unique" / "indie" games, etc. -- these things and others are generally not first-person, and VR almost implies a first person perspective.
Most of those things I listed (aside from platformers) are already more popular on the PC than on console competitors.
I agree that relativity would fuck that up, but do you seriously doubt that people want to communicate based on locations?
"There's a supernova nearby! Look out!".
But a perhaps better argument is that just because you can address every object, doesn't mean you're using the best addressing. Maybe with twice the address space you could implement multiple different hierarchies for different purposes, enabling more efficient multicast scenarios at the expense of memory-per-address.
Which would in fact be a large part of why we're jumping straight to 128 instead of just doubling to 64.
... the cab fare will be the same except there won't be a human receiving the wages.
At the very least, there will be no tips to an automatic car. I'm like 99% sure on that.
Why should stop lights be a problem for driverless cars? They are mostly a solution to coordinating human drivers. Why would road construction be an unsurmountable problem to them? I would think the worst problem for cars is incomplete geolocation outside of city centres when it can't connect to GPS.
Severe rain that blunts sensors is a thing that happens to humans. Sure, a human can move their head freely -- but a human's view is limited to the windows the car has. In essence, a human is limited to the car's sensors.
Destructive potholes happen to humans too. Why is this an autonomous car thing?
I think the real 1% scenario is driving and navigating in rural areas, because the existing maps aren't as great and the bug reports come more seldom.
Also, driverless trains are common. Look at the "Automation 4 Systems" here. Some are decades old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Is there any evidence that he doesn't or won't feel guilty, or that he's incapable of it? Quite a subjective matter, here.
The evidence that he doesn't feel guilty is that he kept on doing it.
Look, I agree that we don't know whether this guy's a sociopath, but we do know he is a repeat violent offender.
I don't really have a good notion of what to do with people like this. Honestly. I kind of suspect that prison is ineffective as a deterrent beyond a relatively short time -- almost nothing is going to be worth 10 years, for example. Clearly this guy wasn't deterred, though he might not have believed he'd be imprisoned for life.
I do think when people say that a punishment is too much, it might be wise for them to offer what they believe is appropriate.
Seriously. How do you think plants grow? They aren't eating anything! It's super-anorexic! And yet they gain mass. Sure, they don't do a lot of exercise, but the vast majority of plants *do not eat*, yet they gain non-water mass.
Humans aren't a closed system. The law of conservation of mass and energy is as inappropriate a tool to measure these claims as using a single weathervane to predict the weather on the other side of the world.
I don't know why you put scare quotes around the thyroid anyway. Do you not believe in the existence of thyroids or something?
MacFarlane's shows have Simpsons'd themselves too though. I'd absolutely put the first few seasons of Family Guy up against most of the Simpsons. I have to admit I haven't watched much new Simpsons in the past...ummm...since that movie, anyway -- so it's conceivable that it's experienced a renaissance, but the last 5 minutes of it that my DVR picks up before the next show hasn't been a convincing ad for it. I watched some old episodes beside some new ones a while back to see if I'd just grown out of it -- and no, the old ones still held up.
The Simpsons disappeared into its own massive character base. It would probably be very reinvigorated if they did had the family move, and were disciplined about NOT bringing old characters back to cameo. Kind of what the Cleveland show did, except, let's not use the most boring character on television. In fact, that's kind of how Futurama started, although it also made good use of the sci-fi setting.
This is also why Family Guy declined -- that, and Stewie changing from a diabolical genius into just another gay joke, and deciding that instead of ignoring the "PC" limits to make jokes, they would actively push the limits as if that was the joke. I don't need another "Barney Gumble is a drunk" joke, and I don't need another "Quagmire is an actual rapist" joke.
I disagree. His first year was pretty great to me. His second year started a soft decline, and it got pretty bad as we got to 2008. Now, good comics (in my opinion) are the exception, rather than the rule. This lines up to when he graduated and then went to xkcd full-time (after a short contract at NASA, which I'm given to understand ended because of budget, not because of problems with him).
His target audience seemed to shift from upper-level physics students with a more-than-passing interest in computers, to people with a middle-of-high-school level of education and nerdiness, with many comics seeming like "look at this thing I read about on wikipedia today!". This is totally understandable -- he was not in classes anymore, he's not being exposed to Karnaugh maps as a new concept or anything like that, so we get bad puns and graph comics and "Get out of my head, Randall!"-baiting.
To be fair to the comic, the early xkcd probably resonated exceptionally well with me because I'm about the same age and was taking very similar courses at the exact same time, and then I went off and worked on computers while he went off to be a t-shirt salesman. Very divergent career paths.
Of course, some of the comics seem custom-designed to be pasted into a teacher's slides (as opposed to being a student's doodles). That's good in a different sense -- I wouldn't necessarily read that for enjoyment. I haven't actually read xkcd in ages but I was confident I could find a recent one that fit the bill, and was not disappointed: http://xkcd.com/1354/ does a good job of explaining a concept to somebody not familiar with computer software, while not being terribly entertaining, especially to those who already knew the concept.
I have more fun with his "What If?" scenarios.
Re:An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people.
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 1
Honestly, the fact that you say that makes me doubtful that you've been.
How could you go to post-secondary education and *not* encounter total douchebags? The phenomenon is even a reasonably popular subject in comedy movies, especially the stoner and gross-out subgenres.
Re:An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people.
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 5, Funny
That's absoexactally right. The worditudinality of an utterance is defined completely by comprehension. Anywhom that says otherwise is being an obnoxialous prescriptivist!
I do have mod points, but you're already at +5 so there's no point in modding you up. So instead let me just say that this is a fantastic explanation. Thank you.
To be fair, there really are solid scientific hypotheses that are consistent with known physical laws that allow time travel -- it's just we have no reason to believe these physics are more real than the simpler alternatives which don't allow time travel, other than wishful thinking.
The theory of general relativity predicts that if traversable wormholes exist, they could allow time travel.
The two keys here are:
1. Traversible wormholes are not proven to exist or be possible (this requires matter with a negative energy density, also not proven to exist). 2. The assumption that general relativity remains a sufficient description of reality in the close vicinity of something so exotic as a traversable wormhole. Wikipedia mentions this by going on to mention quantum effects ruining the wormhole a couple paragraphs later.
Slashdot Mirror
It would not be sufficient, but the GP was not wrong in calling the GGP wrong, because the GGP said "it may indeed be neceesary to use a proxy or VPN".
That's like saying you can't be a Republican without campaigning against gay marriage. It is, after all, a cornerstone of the official Republican platform.
Despite references to papal infallibility and a highly structured organisation, Catholicisim is generally *not* a literalist religion. One of the fundamentals of Catholicism is that you must follow your conscience, even if your conscience is wrong and/or violates Church teachings ("Primacy of Conscience"). In fact it is sin to do something you believe in your conscience is wrong. Even if the Pope himself comes up and tells you with full authority that it is definitely not a sin to take advantage of a free refills policy, if you feel it's wrong, you don't do it. If Sotomayor believes it's wrong for the law to treat fetuses as morally equivalent to adult humans with respect to right to life, from the instant of conception, then it would be wrong of Sotomayor, as a Catholic, to do so.
They struggle with this, of course, because you can stretch "Primacy of Conscience" to mean anything and it's not supposed to be that loose. But the religion isn't one of sharp boundaries and thin lines between black and white and slavish binary rulesets. This is the religion that inspired the concept of Limbo, after all.
(FWIW I am not a Catholic, and it's no fallacy since I am an atheist and have no memory of being anything else)
How is that relevant? It's not there now, so arguments that Common Core is bad because of their social studies content are incoherent at best and likely dishonest.
If you want to take issue with Common Core social studies, then you have to take issue with that.
I don't know much about Common Core or US education, so I don't know whether Common Core is good or bad, nor whether it is better or worse or a little of both compared to what already exists. But I know that you can't conclude that the US Civil War is being removed from US classes by analyzing a textbook on rhetoric.
The Challenger explosion is often discussed in business classes without analyzing the underlying engineering principles at stake (often disguised so that people won't be biased in their go / no-go decision).
Why?
That's a fair point, but I do believe there are also programs that target the impoverished, including white people (mostly white people, just because there's more of them in the country).
This just doesn't happen to be that one.
Analogously, lots of people have problems other than a societal bias against them in tech. That's not what this is trying to solve.
Sometimes we don't try to solve all things for all people at the same time with the same solution.
Are these ancestors 15000 years old?
If not, yeah, there was a country already there. The colonists just didn't consider it a "real" country.
This is a discussion about H1B workers. They're in the country legally.
if they didn't game the system in the first place then they wouldn't have a sad story to tell
Sadly, this is not always true.
Also I hope you at least feel sorry for somebody who crossed the border as a child (as in, their parents took them).
Drinking and driving was one of the big causes in here, and it is illegal.
Aside from drunk driving, drinking is more likely to end in killing yourself. I think gun deaths are more likely to kill other people (aside from suicide, which I would personally exclude from gun violence statistics, but I know is a large number). Nobody talks about restricting access to guns for your personal health.
Also, the number of people who drink is much higher than the number who have guns handy, so this statistic doesn't really inform whether the threat of gun violence is or is not more deserving of regulation than the thread of excessive drinking deaths. *Also* guns are useful for intimidation in robberies and the like in a way that booze is not -- the negative effect of guns is not just death but also the imminent and credible threat of death. Of course on the flip side there are social ills associated with alcohol that are not generally deadly.
The comparison to pop is a little more sensible. However, even the "sugary drinks" ban people were talking about was nothing like prohibition -- it essentially banned selling in a large cup, without banning bottomless refills. I still think it wasn't quite right, but you're the only one talking about blanket bans. Or children, for that matter.
I am not making any statement on gun control (not derailing an article about drinking deaths) other than that there isn't a comparison that's both simple and reasonable between gun control and prohibition.
What is the difference?
How is detecting a violation like objects falling up different from detecting time?
I can only imagine you think the real test is some different scenario?
On a per capita basis, Canada is far worse than China or Russia and about in line with Canada (as of 2005, so right now I have no reason to suspect that things have changed drastically). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
And the tar sands are helping to supply those US numbers.
It may be very true that if not for the tar sands, the province would be in trouble. That doesn't make it a good thing.
Personally I think it's a bit much to blame Alberta for the entirety of the oil industry. Yes, they are a major seller, but it's a convenient externalization (even for Albertans, since it's "other Albertans"). There's also buyers, and they are everywhere. Especially Alberta :), but everywhere.
No, I'm not an Albertan.
It's not at all clear to me that 3 dimensions are harder than 2 for navigation problems. Especially 3 mostly unrestricted dimensions vs. 2 dimensions where you are restricted to roads and certain directions.
It's possible for a thing to be both intuitive and awful.
It's not entirely clear that VR is going to displace PC gaming to that significant of a degree.
As a fairly avid gamer, most games I play are not in the first person perspective and I don't want them to be. I don't like FPS, and that's a huge portion of all first-person games (though I do like the sort of FPS-stealth-subgenre that encompasses Hitman, Dishonoured, Deus Ex, etc., and I can see how VR would be an asset there).
Platformers, most RPGs (the Elder Scrolls series is a popular exception, but I have never liked them), strategy and/or tactics games, most adventure games, most puzzle games, most "unique" / "indie" games, etc. -- these things and others are generally not first-person, and VR almost implies a first person perspective.
Most of those things I listed (aside from platformers) are already more popular on the PC than on console competitors.
I agree that relativity would fuck that up, but do you seriously doubt that people want to communicate based on locations?
"There's a supernova nearby! Look out!".
But a perhaps better argument is that just because you can address every object, doesn't mean you're using the best addressing. Maybe with twice the address space you could implement multiple different hierarchies for different purposes, enabling more efficient multicast scenarios at the expense of memory-per-address.
Which would in fact be a large part of why we're jumping straight to 128 instead of just doubling to 64.
... the cab fare will be the same except there won't be a human receiving the wages.
At the very least, there will be no tips to an automatic car. I'm like 99% sure on that.
Why should stop lights be a problem for driverless cars? They are mostly a solution to coordinating human drivers. Why would road construction be an unsurmountable problem to them? I would think the worst problem for cars is incomplete geolocation outside of city centres when it can't connect to GPS.
Severe rain that blunts sensors is a thing that happens to humans. Sure, a human can move their head freely -- but a human's view is limited to the windows the car has. In essence, a human is limited to the car's sensors.
Destructive potholes happen to humans too. Why is this an autonomous car thing?
I think the real 1% scenario is driving and navigating in rural areas, because the existing maps aren't as great and the bug reports come more seldom.
Also, driverless trains are common. Look at the "Automation 4 Systems" here. Some are decades old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Is there any evidence that he doesn't or won't feel guilty, or that he's incapable of it? Quite a subjective matter, here.
The evidence that he doesn't feel guilty is that he kept on doing it.
Look, I agree that we don't know whether this guy's a sociopath, but we do know he is a repeat violent offender.
I don't really have a good notion of what to do with people like this. Honestly. I kind of suspect that prison is ineffective as a deterrent beyond a relatively short time -- almost nothing is going to be worth 10 years, for example. Clearly this guy wasn't deterred, though he might not have believed he'd be imprisoned for life.
I do think when people say that a punishment is too much, it might be wise for them to offer what they believe is appropriate.
That would be a better argument if we didn't actually have a problem with people being hooked on heroine.
One difference is that we rarely introduce children to heroine.
Yet another person who doesn't breathe or poop!
Seriously. How do you think plants grow? They aren't eating anything! It's super-anorexic! And yet they gain mass. Sure, they don't do a lot of exercise, but the vast majority of plants *do not eat*, yet they gain non-water mass.
Humans aren't a closed system. The law of conservation of mass and energy is as inappropriate a tool to measure these claims as using a single weathervane to predict the weather on the other side of the world.
I don't know why you put scare quotes around the thyroid anyway. Do you not believe in the existence of thyroids or something?
MacFarlane's shows have Simpsons'd themselves too though. I'd absolutely put the first few seasons of Family Guy up against most of the Simpsons. I have to admit I haven't watched much new Simpsons in the past...ummm...since that movie, anyway -- so it's conceivable that it's experienced a renaissance, but the last 5 minutes of it that my DVR picks up before the next show hasn't been a convincing ad for it. I watched some old episodes beside some new ones a while back to see if I'd just grown out of it -- and no, the old ones still held up.
The Simpsons disappeared into its own massive character base. It would probably be very reinvigorated if they did had the family move, and were disciplined about NOT bringing old characters back to cameo. Kind of what the Cleveland show did, except, let's not use the most boring character on television. In fact, that's kind of how Futurama started, although it also made good use of the sci-fi setting.
This is also why Family Guy declined -- that, and Stewie changing from a diabolical genius into just another gay joke, and deciding that instead of ignoring the "PC" limits to make jokes, they would actively push the limits as if that was the joke. I don't need another "Barney Gumble is a drunk" joke, and I don't need another "Quagmire is an actual rapist" joke.
I disagree. His first year was pretty great to me. His second year started a soft decline, and it got pretty bad as we got to 2008. Now, good comics (in my opinion) are the exception, rather than the rule. This lines up to when he graduated and then went to xkcd full-time (after a short contract at NASA, which I'm given to understand ended because of budget, not because of problems with him).
His target audience seemed to shift from upper-level physics students with a more-than-passing interest in computers, to people with a middle-of-high-school level of education and nerdiness, with many comics seeming like "look at this thing I read about on wikipedia today!". This is totally understandable -- he was not in classes anymore, he's not being exposed to Karnaugh maps as a new concept or anything like that, so we get bad puns and graph comics and "Get out of my head, Randall!"-baiting.
To be fair to the comic, the early xkcd probably resonated exceptionally well with me because I'm about the same age and was taking very similar courses at the exact same time, and then I went off and worked on computers while he went off to be a t-shirt salesman. Very divergent career paths.
Of course, some of the comics seem custom-designed to be pasted into a teacher's slides (as opposed to being a student's doodles). That's good in a different sense -- I wouldn't necessarily read that for enjoyment. I haven't actually read xkcd in ages but I was confident I could find a recent one that fit the bill, and was not disappointed: http://xkcd.com/1354/ does a good job of explaining a concept to somebody not familiar with computer software, while not being terribly entertaining, especially to those who already knew the concept.
I have more fun with his "What If?" scenarios.
Honestly, the fact that you say that makes me doubtful that you've been.
How could you go to post-secondary education and *not* encounter total douchebags? The phenomenon is even a reasonably popular subject in comedy movies, especially the stoner and gross-out subgenres.
That's absoexactally right. The worditudinality of an utterance is defined completely by comprehension. Anywhom that says otherwise is being an obnoxialous prescriptivist!
How do you suppose Russia got Alaska if they never invaded North America?
I do have mod points, but you're already at +5 so there's no point in modding you up. So instead let me just say that this is a fantastic explanation. Thank you.
To be fair, there really are solid scientific hypotheses that are consistent with known physical laws that allow time travel -- it's just we have no reason to believe these physics are more real than the simpler alternatives which don't allow time travel, other than wishful thinking.
Examples:
http://physics.about.com/od/ti...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
From the Wikipedia article:
The theory of general relativity predicts that if traversable wormholes exist, they could allow time travel.
The two keys here are:
1. Traversible wormholes are not proven to exist or be possible (this requires matter with a negative energy density, also not proven to exist).
2. The assumption that general relativity remains a sufficient description of reality in the close vicinity of something so exotic as a traversable wormhole. Wikipedia mentions this by going on to mention quantum effects ruining the wormhole a couple paragraphs later.