That article was not that modern humans originated in Asia, but that an ancestor to all the African humans and proto-humans was in Asia, so it's just setting the cutoff point out further still.
You can keep going back and now you're in the oceans, and the oceans have a different shape than today.
- Not black, not white: population size is not significant relative to these other effects. - Black people: supported Obama more than previous presidents, eg. John Kerry. You had 89% voting for John Kerry, so 96% for Obama (plus somewhat higher voter turnout) is not an overwhelming increase when there's far fewer black voters than white voters in the first place. Especially when Obama actually won overall when Kerry lost (implying he was probably more popular overall. - White people: a bit harder to suss out people who might have voted for Obama because he's black, but would not have just voted for any democrat anyway, but little evidence that white people try to hide that motivation.
No, it isn't. It's a proof that there are unprovable statements. It's not a proof that there are no provable statements, which would be self-contradictory.
I would disagree that God is as good of an explanation as any because you can just as easily say "well, what was before that"?
- If God was eternal, why couldn't the pre-big-bang universe be eternal? - If there was not a prior eternity, but there was nevertheless no before God (that is, time had a beginning), then why must there be a before the big-bang? - If there was a before God, then we're back where we started. I suppose we can posit a SuperGod that created God. This recurses, infinite regression, turtles all the way down.
Now, I think some people dismiss the turtles all the way down argument out of hand, but I honestly don't think it is any less satisfying than "at some point, time began". I guess part of why that doesn't get heavy analysis is that major religions tend not to have an infinite hierarchy of gods (they may have hierarchy and they may have infinity but not an infinite org chart of divinity).
However, a finite number of gods does not add anything to 0 gods in this analysis since they terminate the same way the Universe question terminates, so parsimony suggests that this is not a basis for claiming that god exists -- we have no need of the god hypothesis in this context.
It's really unclear to me where that "common sense" comes from. Common sense is not a good answer for "why should we do this", it's an answer for "why did voters choose to do this". As for being in prison, my only guess is that you think watching porn makes children rapists or something, because otherwise I don't see how that leads them to prison.
I've seen different reasons listed for porn being bad:
- Unrealistic and gendered expectations imposed upon girls. - Unrealistic views of women and interpersonal relationships impressed upon boys (related to above). - Exploitation of the actors in porn -- note this does not imply viewing porn is particularly bad for anyone, it's more a supply-side argument for it being wrong to consume even if it's not bad for you. - Shame in sex (whether religion, or "let them keep their innocence a while longer", etc.. - Specific types of pornography that also include violence or something else, linking sex and "something else" in an unhealthy manner.
"There is no proof that there is no greater purpose in life either."
The problem is there's no formal meaning to "is there a greater purpose in life?". Usually I interpret "greater purpose" as meaning "purpose set forth by a sentient creator". So this goes back to whether a giant sky fairy created you (or a clan of interdimensional imps, or whatever). And the "you can't prove it wasn't a giant sky fairy that created everybody last Tuesday with memories intact" is a very empty argument.
Not to mention that if you concede that it's just as likely that there is a purpose as not based on that argument, then you should also concede that you're never going to get to know the purpose of life. Even if sky fairy reveals a purpose to you, it could be that your purpose is to be deceived as to your purpose (you can't prove that's not your purpose...). Is there any difference between life having no purpose beyond what you yourself give it, and life's purpose being utterly unknowable so you have to project a purpose onto it?
I honestly don't understand the mentality of people who care where there's an externally-imposed purpose to life. It doesn't actually change what life is.
Of course, there's other possible interpretations of "greater purpose". For instance, instead of a creator-being, there could be a shepherd-being instilling us with purpose where before we had none. Despite the God-as-a-shepherd imagery appearing in some major religions, I don't think this is what people are going for, and I would expect people to very much not want this.
The problem is that the econ 101 domain is likewise of limited value at scale (rational actors, perfect information, perfect competition, no market feedback loops, etc.). To the point where I wouldn't assume its predictions are going to be ultimately true if they appear to contradict reality temporarily. In any small but not tiny tourist town, there will be grocery stores that the locals don't go to, simply because the prices are significantly higher but they capture a market of tourists that haven't the price-comparison information, nor the patience to gather this information -- preying on the lack of perfect information.
I agree that the "excuse" argument in the summary has basically no meaning (best apology I can come up with is that it broke free of a local optimum in the supply-demand curve revealing a better local optimum, which still fits econ 101 so long as you accept that supply-demand curves can be curvy).
Are you kidding? They kicked Microsoft's ass and fined them almost 1.5 billion dollars -- even for Microsoft that's big. Since then they have this browser ballot screen and special Europe-only versions of Windows etc..
If you kill a guy with 10 kids because he has 10 kids, and announced "this is what you get for having 10 kids!" and posted a youtube video of it on killeverybodywithmorethan9kids.com, then yeah, we'd go down that rabbit hole.
Operating heavy, deadly machinery while intoxicated is a crime because it recklessly takes the lives of others into your hands (and to a lesser extent, the property of others and public property) without justification. It's a serious crime, and that it didn't hurt anybody is a function of chance. If the police found you pulling the trigger on a sniper rifle, which happened to jam, you wouldn't get off just because nobody was harmed. Election fraud is a crime even if the person would have won without your help, because it could have changed the outcome (and you clearly thought it might if you committed the fraud).
I wonder if you could do a statistical analysis of the material harm that's likely to come out of the invasion of privacy and the DUI.
I'm going to come out and assert the following: fewer than 90% of women would hook up with Mark Zuckerberg just because he's insanely rich. I don't really know what percent it is, and I'm sure it's above 0%, but I'm equally sure it's not even close to 90%.
There is a difference between wanting somebody who can take care of himself and still generate surplus resources for the family; and being so boneheaded that you'll subsume your will to any hyper-rich person without a second thought.
There is no primate instinct that distinguishes a billionaire from somebody who makes a comfortable living. Primates don't even have wealth. They have something akin to income, and live equivalent to "paycheque-to-paycheque" lives. There hasn't been a lot of time to evolve recognition of anything beyond sustained provision of sufficient resources, nor is there really any selection pressure to do so.
While I agree with many of your points, I must point out: there is an exit tax to leave the US permanently (and several other free nations). I think the exit tax is actually an immoral tax, as constructed, whereas I'm okay with most other forms of tax (within reason).
Also, secondarily, just because the US doesn't restrict you from leaving doesn't mean you can leave voluntarily. There has to be a destination that is not the US which you can go to voluntarily. Most free nations have some form of immigration restrictions.
The problem is that the system is broken. The web is starting to be written to webkit in much the same way as it used to be written to IE6, even where it doesn't make sense. Using a library is already possible and is already not working. It doesn't matter whether you think it's really the web developer's fault for not using libraries, or the library's fault for not being updated; it's happening.
That doesn't mean I agree with this proposal. I'm wondering if there's a new thing that can be introduced that allows the benefits you described while mitigating the problems that vendor prefixing is causing. For instance, a vendor-neutral prefix for all experimental features coexisting with the vendor-prefix. Maybe that's no better than libraries in the end.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Google's revenue per Australian is higher than Google's revenue per human? Seven and a half times higher. Why is that surprising at all? The US is about 1/20th the world's population and almost 1/2 of Google's revenue source. There are places where very few people have never used the Internet. There are other places where people make less money, so fewer advertising dollars are pointed at them, even if they have equal Internet access.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously he got point 1 backwards but the point stands.
Since the birth control is specifically designed to prevent that straight chick from being pregnant, I'd suggest that works out nicely then.
You're misreading him. He was limping in $2 at a poker game, not limping in to a $2 poker game. The GP missed a word.
(this sort of confusion is why grammar is important!)
Since when does crash imply a plan and an accident? Who planned the crash of the waves against the shoreline?
That article was not that modern humans originated in Asia, but that an ancestor to all the African humans and proto-humans was in Asia, so it's just setting the cutoff point out further still.
You can keep going back and now you're in the oceans, and the oceans have a different shape than today.
The study included that. Click the pdf link.
You can separate that out three ways:
- Not black, not white: population size is not significant relative to these other effects.
- Black people: supported Obama more than previous presidents, eg. John Kerry. You had 89% voting for John Kerry, so 96% for Obama (plus somewhat higher voter turnout) is not an overwhelming increase when there's far fewer black voters than white voters in the first place. Especially when Obama actually won overall when Kerry lost (implying he was probably more popular overall.
- White people: a bit harder to suss out people who might have voted for Obama because he's black, but would not have just voted for any democrat anyway, but little evidence that white people try to hide that motivation.
No, it isn't. It's a proof that there are unprovable statements. It's not a proof that there are no provable statements, which would be self-contradictory.
Branch prediction isn't about fallibility or security.
Because on slashdot, nobody EVER makes a post about how they hate their job but feel trapped in it.
I'd try to make a parallel sentence to yours, but really the job complaints on slashdot can seem so petty even in comparison to the ones you made.
Either life always was, or life came from nonlife.
I'm just going to branch off philosophically:
I would disagree that God is as good of an explanation as any because you can just as easily say "well, what was before that"?
- If God was eternal, why couldn't the pre-big-bang universe be eternal?
- If there was not a prior eternity, but there was nevertheless no before God (that is, time had a beginning), then why must there be a before the big-bang?
- If there was a before God, then we're back where we started. I suppose we can posit a SuperGod that created God. This recurses, infinite regression, turtles all the way down.
Now, I think some people dismiss the turtles all the way down argument out of hand, but I honestly don't think it is any less satisfying than "at some point, time began". I guess part of why that doesn't get heavy analysis is that major religions tend not to have an infinite hierarchy of gods (they may have hierarchy and they may have infinity but not an infinite org chart of divinity).
However, a finite number of gods does not add anything to 0 gods in this analysis since they terminate the same way the Universe question terminates, so parsimony suggests that this is not a basis for claiming that god exists -- we have no need of the god hypothesis in this context.
It's really unclear to me where that "common sense" comes from. Common sense is not a good answer for "why should we do this", it's an answer for "why did voters choose to do this". As for being in prison, my only guess is that you think watching porn makes children rapists or something, because otherwise I don't see how that leads them to prison.
I've seen different reasons listed for porn being bad:
- Unrealistic and gendered expectations imposed upon girls.
- Unrealistic views of women and interpersonal relationships impressed upon boys (related to above).
- Exploitation of the actors in porn -- note this does not imply viewing porn is particularly bad for anyone, it's more a supply-side argument for it being wrong to consume even if it's not bad for you.
- Shame in sex (whether religion, or "let them keep their innocence a while longer", etc..
- Specific types of pornography that also include violence or something else, linking sex and "something else" in an unhealthy manner.
He didn't say a foolproof mechanism, just a mechanism.
"There is no proof that there is no greater purpose in life either."
The problem is there's no formal meaning to "is there a greater purpose in life?". Usually I interpret "greater purpose" as meaning "purpose set forth by a sentient creator". So this goes back to whether a giant sky fairy created you (or a clan of interdimensional imps, or whatever). And the "you can't prove it wasn't a giant sky fairy that created everybody last Tuesday with memories intact" is a very empty argument.
Not to mention that if you concede that it's just as likely that there is a purpose as not based on that argument, then you should also concede that you're never going to get to know the purpose of life. Even if sky fairy reveals a purpose to you, it could be that your purpose is to be deceived as to your purpose (you can't prove that's not your purpose...). Is there any difference between life having no purpose beyond what you yourself give it, and life's purpose being utterly unknowable so you have to project a purpose onto it?
I honestly don't understand the mentality of people who care where there's an externally-imposed purpose to life. It doesn't actually change what life is.
Of course, there's other possible interpretations of "greater purpose". For instance, instead of a creator-being, there could be a shepherd-being instilling us with purpose where before we had none. Despite the God-as-a-shepherd imagery appearing in some major religions, I don't think this is what people are going for, and I would expect people to very much not want this.
The problem is that the econ 101 domain is likewise of limited value at scale (rational actors, perfect information, perfect competition, no market feedback loops, etc.). To the point where I wouldn't assume its predictions are going to be ultimately true if they appear to contradict reality temporarily. In any small but not tiny tourist town, there will be grocery stores that the locals don't go to, simply because the prices are significantly higher but they capture a market of tourists that haven't the price-comparison information, nor the patience to gather this information -- preying on the lack of perfect information.
I agree that the "excuse" argument in the summary has basically no meaning (best apology I can come up with is that it broke free of a local optimum in the supply-demand curve revealing a better local optimum, which still fits econ 101 so long as you accept that supply-demand curves can be curvy).
Are you kidding? They kicked Microsoft's ass and fined them almost 1.5 billion dollars -- even for Microsoft that's big. Since then they have this browser ballot screen and special Europe-only versions of Windows etc..
To Google, so far, they have written a letter.
If you kill a guy with 10 kids because he has 10 kids, and announced "this is what you get for having 10 kids!" and posted a youtube video of it on killeverybodywithmorethan9kids.com, then yeah, we'd go down that rabbit hole.
Errmm...no, he's guilty of the following criminal offenses:
Invasion of privacy
Bias intimidation
Tampering with evidence
Witness tampering
Hindering apprehension or prosecution
Only "bias intimidation" is of even remotely debatable validity, but there is such a thing as criminal intimidation without bias anyway.
Operating heavy, deadly machinery while intoxicated is a crime because it recklessly takes the lives of others into your hands (and to a lesser extent, the property of others and public property) without justification. It's a serious crime, and that it didn't hurt anybody is a function of chance. If the police found you pulling the trigger on a sniper rifle, which happened to jam, you wouldn't get off just because nobody was harmed. Election fraud is a crime even if the person would have won without your help, because it could have changed the outcome (and you clearly thought it might if you committed the fraud).
I wonder if you could do a statistical analysis of the material harm that's likely to come out of the invasion of privacy and the DUI.
Yeah. Sarcasm never works.
I'm going to come out and assert the following: fewer than 90% of women would hook up with Mark Zuckerberg just because he's insanely rich. I don't really know what percent it is, and I'm sure it's above 0%, but I'm equally sure it's not even close to 90%.
There is a difference between wanting somebody who can take care of himself and still generate surplus resources for the family; and being so boneheaded that you'll subsume your will to any hyper-rich person without a second thought.
There is no primate instinct that distinguishes a billionaire from somebody who makes a comfortable living. Primates don't even have wealth. They have something akin to income, and live equivalent to "paycheque-to-paycheque" lives. There hasn't been a lot of time to evolve recognition of anything beyond sustained provision of sufficient resources, nor is there really any selection pressure to do so.
While I agree with many of your points, I must point out: there is an exit tax to leave the US permanently (and several other free nations). I think the exit tax is actually an immoral tax, as constructed, whereas I'm okay with most other forms of tax (within reason).
Also, secondarily, just because the US doesn't restrict you from leaving doesn't mean you can leave voluntarily. There has to be a destination that is not the US which you can go to voluntarily. Most free nations have some form of immigration restrictions.
The problem is that the system is broken. The web is starting to be written to webkit in much the same way as it used to be written to IE6, even where it doesn't make sense. Using a library is already possible and is already not working. It doesn't matter whether you think it's really the web developer's fault for not using libraries, or the library's fault for not being updated; it's happening.
That doesn't mean I agree with this proposal. I'm wondering if there's a new thing that can be introduced that allows the benefits you described while mitigating the problems that vendor prefixing is causing. For instance, a vendor-neutral prefix for all experimental features coexisting with the vendor-prefix. Maybe that's no better than libraries in the end.
I'm rarely in wifi range when I want to use my telephone rather than an alternative (especially not public wifi or wifi I have a password to).
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Google's revenue per Australian is higher than Google's revenue per human? Seven and a half times higher. Why is that surprising at all? The US is about 1/20th the world's population and almost 1/2 of Google's revenue source. There are places where very few people have never used the Internet. There are other places where people make less money, so fewer advertising dollars are pointed at them, even if they have equal Internet access.