You did not provide an example that fit the parameters of the question, and since all you're going to do is spin things and claim that you did (and further claim that your fallacious circular cause and consequence argument is still valid while calling my interpretation 'crazy'), you lack the intellectual integrity that is necessary to make further conduct of this exchange worthwhile. Even in your last post you admit that the societal collapse in Somalia was a cause, so it cannot be an effect, negating its validity as an example. This demonstrates that you are a blatantly dishonest (or extremely obtuse) person, which places you literally beneath my contempt.
Ah, salting the land. Yeah, that has happened so much in the modern era, I forgot all about it. (That's sarcasm, yo.)
Of course land capacity is finite, I didn't say otherwise, and you were acting as though it were fixed. Maybe we can actually have a useful debate about that sometime in the future when land optimization is no longer possible. However, if farming in the third world were done with the equipment and methods of the first, the world food supply would quintuple.
Also, I'm not obsessing about extinction, it's the topic that spawned this discussion, or perhaps you weren't paying attention. Now you try to shift the frame of things to 'maybe an extinction made some people inconvenienced and uncomfortable.' What a specter that is.
And Somalia. You're kidding right? Is this becoming logical fallacy amateur hour now? Let me walk you through this:
Social collapse - leads to - overfishing to compensate for resource shortfalls caused by a disintegrated infrastructure - leads to... social collapse? Oh wait, that ALREADY HAPPENED and was the CAUSE not the EFFECT. Not to mention you cite no extinction, only the vague possibility of one in some hypothetical extension of the scenario.
So, yes, the argument is still over, you still have not provided one example that actually fits the parameters that would set the necessary precedent.
You think my UID means anything? Sparky, I signed up for Slashdot only so I could find out where the local 10 year anniversary party was (which was at the Amazon HQ in Seattle and was totally bitchin' BTW). This was after reading it for ten years. I was reading SomethingAwful since JeffK was new (though I never paid to be a forum member). I used to be an #insub regular back when hepkitten was still hawt. I know Jason Fortuny IRL and he makes good burgers. Do not presume you know anything about me. I guess you think that's how people should act, that I should just assume things about your backgroud, otherwise I'm wrong. Whatever.
Starvation in the modern era is far more frequently a political problem than an agricultural problem. (Your categorizations are poor, treating land's productive capacity as fixed, it isn't, which means it is a matter of agricultural technology, not ecology. I might also add that you were the first to distinguish between agricultural and ecological issues, and now you try to conflate them.)
I notice you dodged my question about when any human society has collapsed due to an extinction. Isn't that kind of the crux of this issue? Wouldn't it establish an important precedent for your point? Of course it would, but the lack of any example, because there are none, does the opposite. Many species have 'gone the way of the dodo' during human existence, and that. has. never. mattered. Argument over.
You have no concept of scale. Obviously I'm not saying 'go starve yourself because it's fun!' but rather that starvation has happened both individually and en masse to every animal species in the history of life itself, and will continue to happen. It is happening right now, and not because of ecology. What are you doing about that? Nothing? Of course. More starvation is inevitable.
Since when did we start talking about you? You want to live, take care of yourself. You want others to live, take care of them too, but don't pretend that propping up species that are no longer able to function in their environment is the direct means of doing those things.
Some societies have collapsed for primarily agricultural reasons, like the Maya, but that's because they didn't know anything about crop rotation or other fundamentals of agricultural science. That has nothing to do with speciation/extinction. I challenge you to name one incident in human history where a human society collapsed because of extinction of an organism. Don't worry, I'll wait.
And as for suicide, you miss the point again. Humanity like all species must fight. Only when we can be supplanted by force can another species claim superiority. How do you think we got where we are today? By hugging all our competing species in the holocene? There was a time when people killed lions with their bare hands, but civilization has turned humanity into one big soft, sensitive hippy campfire drum circle.
Millions have already starved. Know you no history? No anthropology? No biology? Starvation is natural. Countless numbers of countless species have starved in many different eras, some to extinction, so what? What do you care of the starved creatures of the Devonian? It's all the same. You, like most people, are so sentimental about the current biosphere you think it's special, some kind of sacred cow. It's not.
Mass extinctions enabled the biosphere of today. If you consider this biosphere so special, you shouldn't turn around and attack the very process that produced it. The cycle of increases and decreases in speciation over periods is how life improves itself, becomes more efficient, more resilient, and generally advances. If mass extinctions previously have been net benefits, a mass extinction now will likely be a net benefit as well given precedent. You're just too sentimentally attached to current species. You don't grasp the fundamental functions of evolution, that all species are *transitional*. They are all either becoming better species or dying out.
I have no conceit. In fact, if humanity is supplanted by a superior life form, so be it. Life is bigger than species, even ours. You don't even know what the business of life is.
I mitigate risk with an H&K USP.45 full size var. C. You can rest assured that in a breakdown of social order I would fair rather well. Humanity has suffered many collapses. Plagues, famines, etc. etc. and actually, when the population burden is momentarily eased, it can result in an increase in the quality of life for those who remain after the immediate crisis has passed. Resources are always limited, so having to split them fewer ways is a benefit of population decrease.
However all the doomsaying is sourced in nothing of real substance.
Let me be clearer: I don't care about either one. I just didn't want Grond to get away with misinforming people that IV was becoming a producer, because they are on record to the contrary. Just because I point out a misrepresentation does not mean I have a horse in the race.
More human conceit. All you can see is the biosphere now, and when species leave the stage you cannot imagine the species that will enter it. If you look at speciation over time, you'll notice that regardless of mass extinctions, speciation keeps going up. If we intelligent enough, and we are, to adapt ourselves to new orders of the biosphere, any mass extinction will be survivable for us.
I understand, it's glamorous to think you're 'saving the world', but all you're trying to do is artificially maintain invalid paradigms and actually prevent the shuffling of niches that cause natural speciation.
In one of the linked articles it mentions that IV is not going to produce the device themselves, but license the technology to somebody else. So, sorry, but this is not going to be the example that vindicates them as an actual producer.
The sarcasm between the lines here is of course that some species by being cute are somehow magically important and we should intercede at great cost and labor to do whatever we can to prevent their extinction, regardless of the accepted fact that 99% of all once extant species are now extinct. Humanity is so conceited about how it subjectively assigns meaning to niche species that it thinks that a healthy biosphere is one frozen in time where nothing changes, nothing adapts. Never mind that without mass extinctions in prehistory, there would be no animal life as we know it whatsoever.
Well yes, it's not the only model anymore, both models exist in parallel, even overlap. I thought you were trying to say it was obsolete to the point that it essentially no longer existed.
You're now dealing with two different models. Yes, targeted ads are worth more even in lower volumes, that doesn't mean that blind ads at high volumes are worth less, it's rather that the scales achieve parity at different points. You're not invalidating my argument, all you're achieving is stating the fact that targeted ads can get results at lower volumes than blind ads. If blind ads were truly worthless they would disappear, but because they always have a value, however small, that only makes generating as many hits as possible more important. It's simply a matter of scale and scale parity.
I'm not psychic, I can only work with what I'm given. You mentioned nothing previously of slowing. You talked about bringing a site down, which obviously didn't happen in the TIME case or there would have been no way to get the false results in, nor were the false results produced by something as limited as Reload-Every, so my point remains that such a tool is not in of itself sufficient to produce those results.
As a veteran of 4chan from its beginnings, I also instantly distrust anybody who claims participation in an op. Just like one should distrust the authority of anybody who claims to speak for Anonymous.
We're not talking about ads per page. We're talking about how hits per page determines the price point of ads. That hasn't changed. That's why the Super Bowl commands such high ad prices, and that's what ad companies are paying for... views... exposure. Hits continue to relate directly to value.
Let me spell this out for ya. Hits = $$$. It doesn't matter to people like that whether they are right or wrong, so long as they get traffic which of course equals money.
This may be true of the votes directly for moot, but the other twenty entries had to be coordinated, and I doubt that some guy handed out assignments saying 'give x entry y rating z times' for each of the twenty.
Those are far more simple than the TIME poll. It's much easier to get a script to 'vote x y times' than it is to 'assign entry x y rating z times' for twenty different entries in such a way as to spell a word.
Maybe you should click on links before opening your mouth, jackass. This was not about bringing down a site, it was about gaming a survey system so well as to methodically organize 21 entries to spell a phrase with the first letter of each.
Also, browser plugins are not 'network knowledge' any more than HTML is a programming language. If you're going to pretend to be smarter than other people you really need a deeper foundation, but then at that point you might not be pretending anymore.
Your examples don't actually break the model. If person A buys overvalued fraud stock and sells it to person B before the overvalued fraud is uncovered, then it sucks for person B, but if B sells to C before that fraud is uncovered, then the stock really was worth to B what B paid for it.
Of course the argument is that fraud is involved and that invalidates things... but how is that functionally different from any other market force? If I buy a commodity future of a given food, and weather conditions produce a ton more of that food than normal, then that sucks for me, and the person who sold me the future is the 'winner'. Just because something is worth X now, doesn't mean it will in the future. That doesn't make the value 'false' (in the case of fraud, the first value may be false, but each successive change of hands is not, if A misrepresents X to B and B sells X to C, B isn't misrepresenting anything, because that will be what it is really worth to B). The only difference between fraud and any other market force is that when fraud occurs, the perpetrators get prosecuted. However, the value loss is functionally the same as any other value loss.
Google is on top for a reason. When I heard Bing's shopping/product search was supposed to be bitchin', I went and tried it with something I was interested in at the time... think it was a graphics card. Anyway, I searched for two models, one Bing returned NO results where Google returned half a dozen, for another model Bing returned a dozen and Google returned about a hundred. Consequently, if there were no Google, I would suffer a ten-fold or more reduction in my ability to do things. (I haven't tried this specific example on other search engines lately but I don't expect much better.)
Mapquest sucks. It was the first to market, which underscores how much better Google maps is, that so many people who were using Mapquest jumped ship. Android phones are the first line of phones I've actually 'wanted' as opposed to simply perceiving as 'oh well, I guess I need a cell phone, bleh'. For chrissake, they can take pictures of barcodes, search, and deliver cost comparisons and vendor locations on the fly where-ever there is connectivity. Nobody else does that. (Yeah you could key in the UPC to a mobile browser manually, but it takes longer.)
Your ultimate conclusion is correct, Google doesn't lock people in, so moving to alternatives in a worst case scenario isn't a nightmare possibility. However my life without Google would be significantly more bothersome. Though I agree that doesn't make it necessarily 'too big to fail' either.
Slashdot Mirror
You did not provide an example that fit the parameters of the question, and since all you're going to do is spin things and claim that you did (and further claim that your fallacious circular cause and consequence argument is still valid while calling my interpretation 'crazy'), you lack the intellectual integrity that is necessary to make further conduct of this exchange worthwhile. Even in your last post you admit that the societal collapse in Somalia was a cause, so it cannot be an effect, negating its validity as an example. This demonstrates that you are a blatantly dishonest (or extremely obtuse) person, which places you literally beneath my contempt.
Ah, salting the land. Yeah, that has happened so much in the modern era, I forgot all about it. (That's sarcasm, yo.)
... social collapse? Oh wait, that ALREADY HAPPENED and was the CAUSE not the EFFECT. Not to mention you cite no extinction, only the vague possibility of one in some hypothetical extension of the scenario.
Of course land capacity is finite, I didn't say otherwise, and you were acting as though it were fixed. Maybe we can actually have a useful debate about that sometime in the future when land optimization is no longer possible. However, if farming in the third world were done with the equipment and methods of the first, the world food supply would quintuple.
Also, I'm not obsessing about extinction, it's the topic that spawned this discussion, or perhaps you weren't paying attention. Now you try to shift the frame of things to 'maybe an extinction made some people inconvenienced and uncomfortable.' What a specter that is.
And Somalia. You're kidding right? Is this becoming logical fallacy amateur hour now? Let me walk you through this:
Social collapse - leads to - overfishing to compensate for resource shortfalls caused by a disintegrated infrastructure - leads to
So, yes, the argument is still over, you still have not provided one example that actually fits the parameters that would set the necessary precedent.
You think my UID means anything? Sparky, I signed up for Slashdot only so I could find out where the local 10 year anniversary party was (which was at the Amazon HQ in Seattle and was totally bitchin' BTW). This was after reading it for ten years. I was reading SomethingAwful since JeffK was new (though I never paid to be a forum member). I used to be an #insub regular back when hepkitten was still hawt. I know Jason Fortuny IRL and he makes good burgers. Do not presume you know anything about me. I guess you think that's how people should act, that I should just assume things about your backgroud, otherwise I'm wrong. Whatever.
Starvation in the modern era is far more frequently a political problem than an agricultural problem. (Your categorizations are poor, treating land's productive capacity as fixed, it isn't, which means it is a matter of agricultural technology, not ecology. I might also add that you were the first to distinguish between agricultural and ecological issues, and now you try to conflate them.)
I notice you dodged my question about when any human society has collapsed due to an extinction. Isn't that kind of the crux of this issue? Wouldn't it establish an important precedent for your point? Of course it would, but the lack of any example, because there are none, does the opposite. Many species have 'gone the way of the dodo' during human existence, and that. has. never. mattered. Argument over.
You have no concept of scale. Obviously I'm not saying 'go starve yourself because it's fun!' but rather that starvation has happened both individually and en masse to every animal species in the history of life itself, and will continue to happen. It is happening right now, and not because of ecology. What are you doing about that? Nothing? Of course. More starvation is inevitable.
Since when did we start talking about you? You want to live, take care of yourself. You want others to live, take care of them too, but don't pretend that propping up species that are no longer able to function in their environment is the direct means of doing those things.
Some societies have collapsed for primarily agricultural reasons, like the Maya, but that's because they didn't know anything about crop rotation or other fundamentals of agricultural science. That has nothing to do with speciation/extinction. I challenge you to name one incident in human history where a human society collapsed because of extinction of an organism. Don't worry, I'll wait.
And as for suicide, you miss the point again. Humanity like all species must fight. Only when we can be supplanted by force can another species claim superiority. How do you think we got where we are today? By hugging all our competing species in the holocene? There was a time when people killed lions with their bare hands, but civilization has turned humanity into one big soft, sensitive hippy campfire drum circle.
Millions have already starved. Know you no history? No anthropology? No biology? Starvation is natural. Countless numbers of countless species have starved in many different eras, some to extinction, so what? What do you care of the starved creatures of the Devonian? It's all the same. You, like most people, are so sentimental about the current biosphere you think it's special, some kind of sacred cow. It's not.
Mass extinctions enabled the biosphere of today. If you consider this biosphere so special, you shouldn't turn around and attack the very process that produced it. The cycle of increases and decreases in speciation over periods is how life improves itself, becomes more efficient, more resilient, and generally advances. If mass extinctions previously have been net benefits, a mass extinction now will likely be a net benefit as well given precedent. You're just too sentimentally attached to current species. You don't grasp the fundamental functions of evolution, that all species are *transitional*. They are all either becoming better species or dying out.
I have no conceit. In fact, if humanity is supplanted by a superior life form, so be it. Life is bigger than species, even ours. You don't even know what the business of life is.
I mitigate risk with an H&K USP .45 full size var. C. You can rest assured that in a breakdown of social order I would fair rather well. Humanity has suffered many collapses. Plagues, famines, etc. etc. and actually, when the population burden is momentarily eased, it can result in an increase in the quality of life for those who remain after the immediate crisis has passed. Resources are always limited, so having to split them fewer ways is a benefit of population decrease.
However all the doomsaying is sourced in nothing of real substance.
Let me be clearer: I don't care about either one. I just didn't want Grond to get away with misinforming people that IV was becoming a producer, because they are on record to the contrary. Just because I point out a misrepresentation does not mean I have a horse in the race.
Uh, me? I don't care about ARM. I was just saying the GP is wrong.
More human conceit. All you can see is the biosphere now, and when species leave the stage you cannot imagine the species that will enter it. If you look at speciation over time, you'll notice that regardless of mass extinctions, speciation keeps going up. If we intelligent enough, and we are, to adapt ourselves to new orders of the biosphere, any mass extinction will be survivable for us.
I understand, it's glamorous to think you're 'saving the world', but all you're trying to do is artificially maintain invalid paradigms and actually prevent the shuffling of niches that cause natural speciation.
In one of the linked articles it mentions that IV is not going to produce the device themselves, but license the technology to somebody else. So, sorry, but this is not going to be the example that vindicates them as an actual producer.
The sarcasm between the lines here is of course that some species by being cute are somehow magically important and we should intercede at great cost and labor to do whatever we can to prevent their extinction, regardless of the accepted fact that 99% of all once extant species are now extinct. Humanity is so conceited about how it subjectively assigns meaning to niche species that it thinks that a healthy biosphere is one frozen in time where nothing changes, nothing adapts. Never mind that without mass extinctions in prehistory, there would be no animal life as we know it whatsoever.
Well yes, it's not the only model anymore, both models exist in parallel, even overlap. I thought you were trying to say it was obsolete to the point that it essentially no longer existed.
You're now dealing with two different models. Yes, targeted ads are worth more even in lower volumes, that doesn't mean that blind ads at high volumes are worth less, it's rather that the scales achieve parity at different points. You're not invalidating my argument, all you're achieving is stating the fact that targeted ads can get results at lower volumes than blind ads. If blind ads were truly worthless they would disappear, but because they always have a value, however small, that only makes generating as many hits as possible more important. It's simply a matter of scale and scale parity.
I'm not psychic, I can only work with what I'm given. You mentioned nothing previously of slowing. You talked about bringing a site down, which obviously didn't happen in the TIME case or there would have been no way to get the false results in, nor were the false results produced by something as limited as Reload-Every, so my point remains that such a tool is not in of itself sufficient to produce those results.
As a veteran of 4chan from its beginnings, I also instantly distrust anybody who claims participation in an op. Just like one should distrust the authority of anybody who claims to speak for Anonymous.
We're not talking about ads per page. We're talking about how hits per page determines the price point of ads. That hasn't changed. That's why the Super Bowl commands such high ad prices, and that's what ad companies are paying for... views... exposure. Hits continue to relate directly to value.
Let me spell this out for ya. Hits = $$$. It doesn't matter to people like that whether they are right or wrong, so long as they get traffic which of course equals money.
This may be true of the votes directly for moot, but the other twenty entries had to be coordinated, and I doubt that some guy handed out assignments saying 'give x entry y rating z times' for each of the twenty.
Those are far more simple than the TIME poll. It's much easier to get a script to 'vote x y times' than it is to 'assign entry x y rating z times' for twenty different entries in such a way as to spell a word.
Maybe you should click on links before opening your mouth, jackass. This was not about bringing down a site, it was about gaming a survey system so well as to methodically organize 21 entries to spell a phrase with the first letter of each.
Also, browser plugins are not 'network knowledge' any more than HTML is a programming language. If you're going to pretend to be smarter than other people you really need a deeper foundation, but then at that point you might not be pretending anymore.
Do you really think that 4chan could have done this without a botnet?
Your examples don't actually break the model. If person A buys overvalued fraud stock and sells it to person B before the overvalued fraud is uncovered, then it sucks for person B, but if B sells to C before that fraud is uncovered, then the stock really was worth to B what B paid for it.
Of course the argument is that fraud is involved and that invalidates things... but how is that functionally different from any other market force? If I buy a commodity future of a given food, and weather conditions produce a ton more of that food than normal, then that sucks for me, and the person who sold me the future is the 'winner'. Just because something is worth X now, doesn't mean it will in the future. That doesn't make the value 'false' (in the case of fraud, the first value may be false, but each successive change of hands is not, if A misrepresents X to B and B sells X to C, B isn't misrepresenting anything, because that will be what it is really worth to B). The only difference between fraud and any other market force is that when fraud occurs, the perpetrators get prosecuted. However, the value loss is functionally the same as any other value loss.
Yeah you've got that backward. Ebaum's World is the biggest rip-off site ever, and has been doing so since before 4chan was gleam in moot's eye.
FPs get karma burned. You must be new here. Also what Rogerborg said.
I am absolutely dependent on Google.
Google is on top for a reason. When I heard Bing's shopping/product search was supposed to be bitchin', I went and tried it with something I was interested in at the time... think it was a graphics card. Anyway, I searched for two models, one Bing returned NO results where Google returned half a dozen, for another model Bing returned a dozen and Google returned about a hundred. Consequently, if there were no Google, I would suffer a ten-fold or more reduction in my ability to do things. (I haven't tried this specific example on other search engines lately but I don't expect much better.)
Mapquest sucks. It was the first to market, which underscores how much better Google maps is, that so many people who were using Mapquest jumped ship. Android phones are the first line of phones I've actually 'wanted' as opposed to simply perceiving as 'oh well, I guess I need a cell phone, bleh'. For chrissake, they can take pictures of barcodes, search, and deliver cost comparisons and vendor locations on the fly where-ever there is connectivity. Nobody else does that. (Yeah you could key in the UPC to a mobile browser manually, but it takes longer.)
Your ultimate conclusion is correct, Google doesn't lock people in, so moving to alternatives in a worst case scenario isn't a nightmare possibility. However my life without Google would be significantly more bothersome. Though I agree that doesn't make it necessarily 'too big to fail' either.