"You cannot defeat an enemy who is willing to fight a Huey with a bow and arrow".
Sure you can.
Shoot him.
That's why Hueys have those BFGs mounted in the doorways, and why they have the eponymous Door Gunner to operate the thing.
The statement is logically equivalent to saying "you can't defeat an enemy who insists on engaging you even though he has less mobility and less firepower than yourself. This is laughably untrue, as any FPS can trivially demonstrate.
I know, I know, it's actually about the difficulty of defeating fanatics who refuse to let common sense govern their belligerence and thirst for blood. But even then, it's more funny than true. Fanatics--especially under-equipped fanatics--are trivially easy to defeat with superior mobility and firepower. You just have to be willing to shoot them. Since most fanatics in this context are bloodthirsty and belligerent, they will, by definition, be doing their utmost to make the choice between shooting them and dying an obvious one for anybody with an ounce of self-preservation.
Come to think of it, the facts on the ground during the Tet Offensive pretty thoroughly demonstrate just how easy it is to defeat fanatics who insist on engaging superior forces--even when the fanatics are using surprise attacks and guerilla tactics.
...I figured these "scientists" would see the International Red Cross, or Jimmy Carter's work on Habitat For Humanity, and correctly assume that friendly relations with Earth were not only possible, but likely.
But hey, if it pleases you to assume that all alien researchers are stupid fucking idiots, who am I to disagree?
It's a safe bet your local PD doesn't have the equipment, budget, manpower, or training to go after all the serious evildoers in your community. But that's not worth you dragging yourself away from/. long enough to help out in any meaningful way, is it?
No, it takes the serious problem of sensor-equipped road studs to make you act like an asshat "for great justice!"
Please never fight crime in my neighborhood, Batman.
You make some good points, and I'm not disputing any of them. Rather, I'm disputing the argument that we can assume that the suspect did not intend to open those popups, therefore he is not the criminal we are looking for. Clearly, the investigation should dig a little deeper than that (as you quite rightly propose).
And here's some common sense: while you can deduce intent from physical evidence and documented actions, it's the evidence and actions of the suspect that make the crime, not the idea. What your rule demands is that we prosecute thought crimes, and only thought crimes.
The man probably didn't want to open up the string of popups,
That's a good guess, but how accurate is it? How trustworthy is it? How sure can you be that the man did not want to open all these pop-ups (either for their own sake, or as an acceptable side effect of some other intentional act)? Shouldn't you be looking at the actual physical evidence and documented activity, in order to determine what crime has been committed, and by whom? Basing your investigation on a wild-ass guess about the ideas in the head of the suspect doesn't seem very much like common sense to me.
So far as I can tell, technology, like the law, is still just a tool at the end of the day. It wasn't the laws of Germany that "brought about the Nazi's Reich", it was the Nazis. Technology killed the Jews at Auschwitz, after all, but we don't look to technology when we assign blame.
A culture could share some infrastructural characteristics with 1930s Germany indefinitely, and still never spawn anything even remotely as horrible as the Third Reich. The creation and suspension of laws do not a tyrrany make.
a game where a man and a woman are trying to convince the referee about their genders... Now, if you can replace a computer for one of the participants without the referee noticing, you pass the test. You think homosexuality is irrelevant to that?
Why wouldn't it be? It seems like you're saying that Turing's homosexuality made him especially skilled at acting convincingly "femme" (by the standards of his day, whatever those were). I'm not at all sure that's a valid argument.
And even if it were valid, that particular argument is totally irrelevant to the Turing Test discussion.
Now, if you were saying, "only a gay smarty man like Turing had the special insight necessary to devise a test in which a computer and a human male both try to convincingly impersonate a woman!", that would be a relevant argument. A stupid argument, but at least a relevant one.
Please note that in no discussion from the time I first heard of Alan Turing until this one here (over a period of at least fifteen years) has gender orientation ever come up as a relevant factor in the design or implementation of the Turing Test. Has every other person I've ever read or conversed with on this topic been completely clueless about this issue? Are you the only one gifted with a special insight into what's really important about the Turing Test? Let me guess: it's your gayness, isn't it, that grants you this special enlightenment?
First you say that "the majority of US news consumers are blissfully unaware " of media bias. Then you "wonder how many people actually avail themseleves of this incredible opportunity" [to evaluate media bias from a variety of sources].
So which is it? Are you sure that Americans aren't aware of media bias and blindly accept whatever their favorite paper tells them? Or do you not know the American attitudes towards the media, and wonder what those attitudes are?
And how would you know, one way or the other? Correcting for source bias is a personal, internal thing. For the most part, a person's outward speech and actions give us very little insight into how important factors such as media bias, faction loyalty, independent reasoning, &c. really are to the observable outcome.
"Egyptians know better than to trust the media, but Americans don't" is hardly insightful, probably untrue, and thoroughly unsubstantiated.
You're an American. You don't trust the media. Why wouldn't other Americans claim the same level of enlightenment you boast of?
Holy shit! I had no idea that Klingons weren't real! I guess I should have done a little more research before totally buying into this whole Star Trek thing!
Or maybe you should stop being the only person on the face of the planet whose brain can't handle using concrete syntaxes to discuss abstracts and hypotheticals.
Yeah, so that whole bit about math was waaay off. Obviously, it should have been a mean-spirited rant about astronomy. Please strike the final paragraph of my previous post, and replace with something along the lines of "Astronomy--accessible to anybody with one eyeball and half a brain!" and "Astronomy--not just for Modern Man!".
On what basis should we conclude that Plato was making stuff up when he added to the Atlantis story, but that Solon "the great" and the Egyptian Priests he got the story from were telling the truth or something like it?
And what does being called "the great" have to do with anything? There's tons of fancy gentlemen with fancy titles who are asshats just the same. Plato may have thought Solon was all that, but simply throwing out that he was called "the great" doesn't really do anything to make him other than Just Some Guy, to me.
Perhaps there really was a world-spanning flood of some kind, but that doesn't lead directly to Atlantis = teh real. Who's to say Solon's alleged Egyptian priests didn't embellish the flood story with some myth about a mysterious city of power, or whatever, simply to make some sort of point to their subjects and worshippers--much the way Plato embellished the story to make a point to his own audience?
Really, at this point you probably should play the Von Daniken card, and get it over with.
But what about this Von Daniken card, anyway? I bet if you looked a little closer, you'd discover that the differences between the Egyptian and Aztec pyramids are more significant than the similarities. After all, the similarities can all be explained by two things: A universal human urge, common to all cultures in all times and places, to build monuments; and certain technological restrictions in the field of construction materials and methods. These civilizations didn't have steel-reinforced concrete, heavy-duty cranes, or any of the other things that allow you to build anything other than a slope-sided, tapering structure. What else were they going to build? The Petronas Towers? They didn't need space aliens or spooky Atlantean apocalypses to clue them in on popular construction methods being used halfway around the world--they just needed the physical facts of the their immediate environment.
Meanwhile, purpose of the Egyptian pyramids is to act as a tomb, and the focus of the Egyptian pyramids is a chamber deep inside. Once the dead king was entombed, the Pyramids were never entered again, but were admired only from the outside. On the other hand, the Aztec structures were temples that saw constant use, and their focus was a ceremonial altar space at the top. And that's just for starters, some obvious and important differences in purpose and usage.
Finally, what about the mathematics? Only mythical Atlanteans, space aliens, and modern civilization have what it takes to figure out math? I think the basic principles of counting and calculating are accessible enough for the Egyptians and Aztecs to have figured them out on their own, independently. No need to resort to metaphysical conspiracy theories to explain why anybody besides Modern Man figured out how to add numbers together and count the cycle of years.
As telecommuting and related technologies and activities become more prevalent, more cost-effective, and more effective overall, I would expect to see a consistent trend towards Presidents doing an increasing amount of presidenting from places other than the White House.
Soon, the question will be, "why does the President bother to go the White House at all?"
Surely we can all understand the productivity and job satisfaction increases that come from working in an environment of our own choosing, tailored to meet our own personal ideas of comfort and convenience.
The Oval Office has served this nation well, as a "Fortress of Solitude" for Presidents throughtout the years before web-enabled cell phones, broadband internet, and strong encryption. Doubtless it will continue to serve in such a capacity for many years to come. But I expect that from a practical point of view, those years are numbered.
What I want is a grass that's immune to dog pee. Our dog is great... but one of the things he's great at is delivering huge quantities of grasskiller to our back yard several times per day.
On the other hand, if you have a problem with ubergrass, just get a dog. Healthy, friendly, and maybe just a little too good at keeping your lawn in check.
I've been hearing in the news for over ten years that this is the year that killer bees will finally arrive in California.
Where are they coming from? It's not quite clear, really, but I think it's Texas.
Meanwhile, I never hear reports about killer bee infestations in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada--all places I'd expect to hear about killer bees from, on their way to California. For a deadly infestation that's supposed to be here "real soon now", these alleged bees don't seem to be causing trouble even in the places they've supposedly already overrun.
So don't play the Killer Bees Card on me. The real bees were supposed to have stung me to death ten years ago. As of today, not only have they completely failed to conquer California, but as far as I can tell, they've completely failed to conquer Texas, as well.
I shop at Fry's all the time. Much of the complaints are true, though exaggerated here (presumably for comic/frustration effect).
Mainly, I think of Fry's as a great place to shop if you know what you're doing and don't need any help. It sucks for casual shoppers, newbies, or people that need lots of customer service.
Also, I always ignore the receipt-audit line at the exit and just walk right out.
Re:Previous attempt to avoid contamination
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Look: The Galileo probe had contamination problems because it was designed for a space-only mission, and therefore was not subjected to a rigorous decontamination process before launch.
Therefore, when the possibility arose that it might crash on Europa, the decision was made to burn the probe rather than risk contamination.
Since this probe is intended to actually land on Europa, it will be subjected to the rigorous decontaminiation process that is already in place and applied as part of the standard prep checklst for planetary missions (such as the Mars rovers, for example).
Summary: Galileo--space mission, not decontaminated, not allowed to land on Europa. Europa Probe--planetary mission, decontaminated, intended to land on Europa. You--not smarter than NASA.
So, um, congratulations, I guess, for popularizing yet another good idea that will marginally improve Windows without measurably advancing the cause of OSS. Kudos for all the hard work!
Oh, no, CFD certainly is proof enough for me. I have no problem taking the word of reputable experts, especially in the case of aerodynamics, which as you pointed out is quite well-backed by actual demonstrations. Also, stipulating that there are other kinds of "proofs" besides mathematical ones, the planes themselves are a sufficient physical proof that the claims made are, in fact, true.
So far as I can tell, you are now saying that the concepts of lift and drag are provable, both mathematically and experimentally. So we still don't "all know that they aren't provable". Where is the part where you bring to me this knowledge?
Not to mention that current air travel isn't technically provable anyway. We all know the concepts of lift and drag, etc., but we also all know that they aren't provable.
Sorry, but we don't all know about this. I, for one, will need to be filled in.
Actually, this prediction strikes me as 100% safe. It's not going to poke anybody's eye out, it's not going to get an innocent man executed, and nobody will lose a limb if they don't keep it inside the prediction.
The prediction doesn't need to be made by a trained driver on a closed course. It doesn't require a safety belt. It can be made while operating heavy machinery. It doesn't molest children, it doesn't attack civilians, and it's not flammable in air.
If correct, the prediction will not lead to war. If false, the prediction will not lead to famine.
Someone could wager their life on the accuracy of this prediction, but that speaks to the safety of wagering, not the safety of the prediction.
Some idiot could rush out to prove this prediction false, accidentally driving over a pedestrian in their haste, but that speaks to the safety of letting idiots drive automobiles, not the safety of the prediction.
The prediction may, in fact, be every bit as wrong as you claim. But it's not unsafe in any way.
No, my argument is about what do you qualify as information and what difference there is between data and information if any.
I am using the two terms interchangeably, to mean, well, information. I admire your commitment to precision in vocabulary, but I think you may be missing the point of what I'm saying--the point being that advances in computer technology make it easier to work with information/data.
It seems as though you are disagreeing with this point because you don't feel that the words I'm using are quite right for the job. This is semantic quibbling that does nothing to advance the conversation.
It seems as though you are defining "data" as "facts", and "information" as "interpretation of facts". You then proceed to refute my argument on the basis that people can make mistakes in interpeting the available information, and that people often jump to wrong conclusions due to a lack of information and the inability to analyze it effectively.
Fine, but human error will always be with us. Saying that advances in information techology are irrelevant to my argument because people still make mistakes is completely beside the point. Again, my point is that advances in information technology make it easier to collect more information, and easier to analyze it effectively. Therefore, advances in information technology improve the situation you complain about, where people make mistakes because they don't have enough information or the tools to analyze it effectively. Your hypothetical scenarios all present information failures based on a lack of information or proper analysis. This kind of failure is exactly what information technology works to prevent. I'll happily agree that these failures--which are partly human failures--will never be completely prevented, but they are reduced by the very technology whose utility you seem to deny.
Later you say that I should either choose to acknowledge that I want ease of _data_ use or stop asking for better technology (which is already a false dicotomy because I can at the same time NOT acknowledge that I want data
ease-of-use AND ask for better computing because I want, for instace, to play video games)
I'll leave aside the semanting quibbling here, and address you main point: the technology that makes better video games and the technology that makes better information processing are the exact same technology. Whenever you play a video game, your computer is processing information--as much information as it possibly can. The fact that this information serves no practical purpose other than to amuse you doesn't change the fact that it is information, and that advances in videogames do require advances in information technology.
because , you say, we can't advance computer technology (whatever it means to you) without making getting and studying information easier ; but I can, for instace, increase the instruction per second a CPU can crunch and that would make data analysis faster, but not easier because
fast doesn't mean easy, I could run 100 meters in 10 seconds or in 5 seconds , but it still would require an highly skilled runner not to stumble at such speeds. Same for data analysis, faster CPU is probably better , but doesn't make data analysis easier.
A faster CPU means that more information can be processed in the same amount of time. That is, in fact, the whole point of making CPUs faster. Of course, a faster CPU doesn't mean the quality of the information is any better--that's mainly a human decision to make. But a faster CPU means a human can work with the available information more easily, giving that human greater understanding of the information, and allowing them to make a more accurate evaluation of the information's quality. A faster CPU does make information analysis easier, by its very nature. It doesn't automatically make the human decisions based on that informatio
You're not making much sense. The problem you're talking about is the problem of not having enough information to draw a correct conclusion. Your argument seems to be that as it becomes cheaper and easier to collect and analyze information, this problem will get worse. It doesn't follow.
And yes, the whole point of computer technology is that it makes getting and studying information easier. You can't really advance one without advancing the other. Either acknowledge that ease of data use is what you want, or else stop asking for better computing technology.
Me, I'd define "privacy" as a side effect of "liberty"--that is, I have the inalienable right to not be coerced to give up information against my will. Thus, information that I freely release, or that is made public by the nature of my existence without any conscious decision on my part, is not "private", and taking and using that information does not infringe on my right to liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you can.
Shoot him.
That's why Hueys have those BFGs mounted in the doorways, and why they have the eponymous Door Gunner to operate the thing.
The statement is logically equivalent to saying "you can't defeat an enemy who insists on engaging you even though he has less mobility and less firepower than yourself. This is laughably untrue, as any FPS can trivially demonstrate.
I know, I know, it's actually about the difficulty of defeating fanatics who refuse to let common sense govern their belligerence and thirst for blood. But even then, it's more funny than true. Fanatics--especially under-equipped fanatics--are trivially easy to defeat with superior mobility and firepower. You just have to be willing to shoot them. Since most fanatics in this context are bloodthirsty and belligerent, they will, by definition, be doing their utmost to make the choice between shooting them and dying an obvious one for anybody with an ounce of self-preservation.
Come to think of it, the facts on the ground during the Tet Offensive pretty thoroughly demonstrate just how easy it is to defeat fanatics who insist on engaging superior forces--even when the fanatics are using surprise attacks and guerilla tactics.
...I figured these "scientists" would see the International Red Cross, or Jimmy Carter's work on Habitat For Humanity, and correctly assume that friendly relations with Earth were not only possible, but likely.
But hey, if it pleases you to assume that all alien researchers are stupid fucking idiots, who am I to disagree?
... or is the vigilante in you pretty worthless?
/. long enough to help out in any meaningful way, is it?
It's a safe bet your local PD doesn't have the equipment, budget, manpower, or training to go after all the serious evildoers in your community. But that's not worth you dragging yourself away from
No, it takes the serious problem of sensor-equipped road studs to make you act like an asshat "for great justice!"
Please never fight crime in my neighborhood, Batman.
You make some good points, and I'm not disputing any of them. Rather, I'm disputing the argument that we can assume that the suspect did not intend to open those popups, therefore he is not the criminal we are looking for. Clearly, the investigation should dig a little deeper than that (as you quite rightly propose).
For example, here's an absolute rule:
If there is no intent, there should be no crime.
And here's some common sense: while you can deduce intent from physical evidence and documented actions, it's the evidence and actions of the suspect that make the crime, not the idea. What your rule demands is that we prosecute thought crimes, and only thought crimes.
The man probably didn't want to open up the string of popups,
That's a good guess, but how accurate is it? How trustworthy is it? How sure can you be that the man did not want to open all these pop-ups (either for their own sake, or as an acceptable side effect of some other intentional act)? Shouldn't you be looking at the actual physical evidence and documented activity, in order to determine what crime has been committed, and by whom? Basing your investigation on a wild-ass guess about the ideas in the head of the suspect doesn't seem very much like common sense to me.
therefor is not responsible for this.
Once again, absolute rules screw common sense.
A culture could share some infrastructural characteristics with 1930s Germany indefinitely, and still never spawn anything even remotely as horrible as the Third Reich. The creation and suspension of laws do not a tyrrany make.
Why wouldn't it be? It seems like you're saying that Turing's homosexuality made him especially skilled at acting convincingly "femme" (by the standards of his day, whatever those were). I'm not at all sure that's a valid argument.
And even if it were valid, that particular argument is totally irrelevant to the Turing Test discussion.
Now, if you were saying, "only a gay smarty man like Turing had the special insight necessary to devise a test in which a computer and a human male both try to convincingly impersonate a woman!", that would be a relevant argument. A stupid argument, but at least a relevant one.
Please note that in no discussion from the time I first heard of Alan Turing until this one here (over a period of at least fifteen years) has gender orientation ever come up as a relevant factor in the design or implementation of the Turing Test. Has every other person I've ever read or conversed with on this topic been completely clueless about this issue? Are you the only one gifted with a special insight into what's really important about the Turing Test? Let me guess: it's your gayness, isn't it, that grants you this special enlightenment?
First you say that "the majority of US news consumers are blissfully unaware " of media bias. Then you "wonder how many people actually avail themseleves of this incredible opportunity" [to evaluate media bias from a variety of sources].
So which is it? Are you sure that Americans aren't aware of media bias and blindly accept whatever their favorite paper tells them? Or do you not know the American attitudes towards the media, and wonder what those attitudes are?
And how would you know, one way or the other? Correcting for source bias is a personal, internal thing. For the most part, a person's outward speech and actions give us very little insight into how important factors such as media bias, faction loyalty, independent reasoning, &c. really are to the observable outcome.
"Egyptians know better than to trust the media, but Americans don't" is hardly insightful, probably untrue, and thoroughly unsubstantiated.
You're an American. You don't trust the media. Why wouldn't other Americans claim the same level of enlightenment you boast of?
Holy shit! I had no idea that Klingons weren't real! I guess I should have done a little more research before totally buying into this whole Star Trek thing!
Or maybe you should stop being the only person on the face of the planet whose brain can't handle using concrete syntaxes to discuss abstracts and hypotheticals.
Yeah, so that whole bit about math was waaay off. Obviously, it should have been a mean-spirited rant about astronomy. Please strike the final paragraph of my previous post, and replace with something along the lines of "Astronomy--accessible to anybody with one eyeball and half a brain!" and "Astronomy--not just for Modern Man!".
Thank you.
On what basis should we conclude that Plato was making stuff up when he added to the Atlantis story, but that Solon "the great" and the Egyptian Priests he got the story from were telling the truth or something like it?
And what does being called "the great" have to do with anything? There's tons of fancy gentlemen with fancy titles who are asshats just the same. Plato may have thought Solon was all that, but simply throwing out that he was called "the great" doesn't really do anything to make him other than Just Some Guy, to me.
Perhaps there really was a world-spanning flood of some kind, but that doesn't lead directly to Atlantis = teh real. Who's to say Solon's alleged Egyptian priests didn't embellish the flood story with some myth about a mysterious city of power, or whatever, simply to make some sort of point to their subjects and worshippers--much the way Plato embellished the story to make a point to his own audience?
Really, at this point you probably should play the Von Daniken card, and get it over with.
But what about this Von Daniken card, anyway? I bet if you looked a little closer, you'd discover that the differences between the Egyptian and Aztec pyramids are more significant than the similarities. After all, the similarities can all be explained by two things: A universal human urge, common to all cultures in all times and places, to build monuments; and certain technological restrictions in the field of construction materials and methods. These civilizations didn't have steel-reinforced concrete, heavy-duty cranes, or any of the other things that allow you to build anything other than a slope-sided, tapering structure. What else were they going to build? The Petronas Towers? They didn't need space aliens or spooky Atlantean apocalypses to clue them in on popular construction methods being used halfway around the world--they just needed the physical facts of the their immediate environment.
Meanwhile, purpose of the Egyptian pyramids is to act as a tomb, and the focus of the Egyptian pyramids is a chamber deep inside. Once the dead king was entombed, the Pyramids were never entered again, but were admired only from the outside. On the other hand, the Aztec structures were temples that saw constant use, and their focus was a ceremonial altar space at the top. And that's just for starters, some obvious and important differences in purpose and usage.
Finally, what about the mathematics? Only mythical Atlanteans, space aliens, and modern civilization have what it takes to figure out math? I think the basic principles of counting and calculating are accessible enough for the Egyptians and Aztecs to have figured them out on their own, independently. No need to resort to metaphysical conspiracy theories to explain why anybody besides Modern Man figured out how to add numbers together and count the cycle of years.
I guess it all depends on how long until Venus can send over proxy bots of its own, to resist our rovers...
As telecommuting and related technologies and activities become more prevalent, more cost-effective, and more effective overall, I would expect to see a consistent trend towards Presidents doing an increasing amount of presidenting from places other than the White House.
Soon, the question will be, "why does the President bother to go the White House at all?"
Surely we can all understand the productivity and job satisfaction increases that come from working in an environment of our own choosing, tailored to meet our own personal ideas of comfort and convenience.
The Oval Office has served this nation well, as a "Fortress of Solitude" for Presidents throughtout the years before web-enabled cell phones, broadband internet, and strong encryption. Doubtless it will continue to serve in such a capacity for many years to come. But I expect that from a practical point of view, those years are numbered.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
What I want is a grass that's immune to dog pee. Our dog is great... but one of the things he's great at is delivering huge quantities of grasskiller to our back yard several times per day.
On the other hand, if you have a problem with ubergrass, just get a dog. Healthy, friendly, and maybe just a little too good at keeping your lawn in check.
Where are they coming from? It's not quite clear, really, but I think it's Texas.
Meanwhile, I never hear reports about killer bee infestations in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada--all places I'd expect to hear about killer bees from, on their way to California. For a deadly infestation that's supposed to be here "real soon now", these alleged bees don't seem to be causing trouble even in the places they've supposedly already overrun.
So don't play the Killer Bees Card on me. The real bees were supposed to have stung me to death ten years ago. As of today, not only have they completely failed to conquer California, but as far as I can tell, they've completely failed to conquer Texas, as well.
Please unsubscribe me from your newsletter.
I shop at Fry's all the time. Much of the complaints are true, though exaggerated here (presumably for comic/frustration effect). Mainly, I think of Fry's as a great place to shop if you know what you're doing and don't need any help. It sucks for casual shoppers, newbies, or people that need lots of customer service. Also, I always ignore the receipt-audit line at the exit and just walk right out.
Look: The Galileo probe had contamination problems because it was designed for a space-only mission, and therefore was not subjected to a rigorous decontamination process before launch.
Therefore, when the possibility arose that it might crash on Europa, the decision was made to burn the probe rather than risk contamination.
Since this probe is intended to actually land on Europa, it will be subjected to the rigorous decontaminiation process that is already in place and applied as part of the standard prep checklst for planetary missions (such as the Mars rovers, for example).
Summary:
Galileo--space mission, not decontaminated, not allowed to land on Europa.
Europa Probe--planetary mission, decontaminated, intended to land on Europa.
You--not smarter than NASA.
Does this mean we should discount the gap between you and terrorists, perhaps downplay your contributions to society?
So, um, congratulations, I guess, for popularizing yet another good idea that will marginally improve Windows without measurably advancing the cause of OSS. Kudos for all the hard work!
So far as I can tell, you are now saying that the concepts of lift and drag are provable, both mathematically and experimentally. So we still don't "all know that they aren't provable". Where is the part where you bring to me this knowledge?
Sorry, but we don't all know about this. I, for one, will need to be filled in.
Actually, this prediction strikes me as 100% safe. It's not going to poke anybody's eye out, it's not going to get an innocent man executed, and nobody will lose a limb if they don't keep it inside the prediction.
The prediction doesn't need to be made by a trained driver on a closed course. It doesn't require a safety belt. It can be made while operating heavy machinery. It doesn't molest children, it doesn't attack civilians, and it's not flammable in air.
If correct, the prediction will not lead to war. If false, the prediction will not lead to famine.
Someone could wager their life on the accuracy of this prediction, but that speaks to the safety of wagering, not the safety of the prediction.
Some idiot could rush out to prove this prediction false, accidentally driving over a pedestrian in their haste, but that speaks to the safety of letting idiots drive automobiles, not the safety of the prediction.
The prediction may, in fact, be every bit as wrong as you claim. But it's not unsafe in any way.
I am using the two terms interchangeably, to mean, well, information. I admire your commitment to precision in vocabulary, but I think you may be missing the point of what I'm saying--the point being that advances in computer technology make it easier to work with information/data.
It seems as though you are disagreeing with this point because you don't feel that the words I'm using are quite right for the job. This is semantic quibbling that does nothing to advance the conversation.
It seems as though you are defining "data" as "facts", and "information" as "interpretation of facts". You then proceed to refute my argument on the basis that people can make mistakes in interpeting the available information, and that people often jump to wrong conclusions due to a lack of information and the inability to analyze it effectively.
Fine, but human error will always be with us. Saying that advances in information techology are irrelevant to my argument because people still make mistakes is completely beside the point. Again, my point is that advances in information technology make it easier to collect more information, and easier to analyze it effectively. Therefore, advances in information technology improve the situation you complain about, where people make mistakes because they don't have enough information or the tools to analyze it effectively. Your hypothetical scenarios all present information failures based on a lack of information or proper analysis. This kind of failure is exactly what information technology works to prevent. I'll happily agree that these failures--which are partly human failures--will never be completely prevented, but they are reduced by the very technology whose utility you seem to deny.
Later you say that I should either choose to acknowledge that I want ease of _data_ use or stop asking for better technology (which is already a false dicotomy because I can at the same time NOT acknowledge that I want data ease-of-use AND ask for better computing because I want, for instace, to play video games)
I'll leave aside the semanting quibbling here, and address you main point: the technology that makes better video games and the technology that makes better information processing are the exact same technology. Whenever you play a video game, your computer is processing information--as much information as it possibly can. The fact that this information serves no practical purpose other than to amuse you doesn't change the fact that it is information, and that advances in videogames do require advances in information technology.
because , you say, we can't advance computer technology (whatever it means to you) without making getting and studying information easier ; but I can, for instace, increase the instruction per second a CPU can crunch and that would make data analysis faster, but not easier because fast doesn't mean easy, I could run 100 meters in 10 seconds or in 5 seconds , but it still would require an highly skilled runner not to stumble at such speeds. Same for data analysis, faster CPU is probably better , but doesn't make data analysis easier.
A faster CPU means that more information can be processed in the same amount of time. That is, in fact, the whole point of making CPUs faster. Of course, a faster CPU doesn't mean the quality of the information is any better--that's mainly a human decision to make. But a faster CPU means a human can work with the available information more easily, giving that human greater understanding of the information, and allowing them to make a more accurate evaluation of the information's quality. A faster CPU does make information analysis easier, by its very nature. It doesn't automatically make the human decisions based on that informatio
You're not making much sense. The problem you're talking about is the problem of not having enough information to draw a correct conclusion. Your argument seems to be that as it becomes cheaper and easier to collect and analyze information, this problem will get worse. It doesn't follow.
And yes, the whole point of computer technology is that it makes getting and studying information easier. You can't really advance one without advancing the other. Either acknowledge that ease of data use is what you want, or else stop asking for better computing technology.
Me, I'd define "privacy" as a side effect of "liberty"--that is, I have the inalienable right to not be coerced to give up information against my will. Thus, information that I freely release, or that is made public by the nature of my existence without any conscious decision on my part, is not "private", and taking and using that information does not infringe on my right to liberty.