Depressed people (people whose "brain is telling you you're all alone") do everything they can to feel some sort of human connection
You repeated this as if it were true. I can see how an extrovert might think it's true, but I can't find any backing for it at all. People who are seeking contact may use the internet instead of face to face, but that does not increase your desire for contact. Everything I have read suggests depressed people avoid contact.
The logical conclusion is that both you and GGP naturally seek out people, and cannot conceive of someone not having that urge to connect. Another conclusion is that you both are confusing depression with loneliness. Feeling alone can lead to depression, or depression can cause you to cut back on social activities, feeding loneliness. But they are separate. Introverts do not get lonely normally, and there is nothing inherent to depression which would change your loneliness threshold.
It was a sensible reply, and I would urge you to find some citation for your claim (quoted). You may agree, after being unable to find a citation. I am sure a few people do this, but I would expect a percentage, and one that is greater than 50%. From your statement, with no wiggle room I'd expect more like 85% of depressed people do everything they can to connect with people. Here's a starting point: do depressed extroverts really go to lots of parties?
Pretty sure that's irrelevant to the point GP was making. For the same master, vinyl has lower fidelity than a CD. You're talking about using a different master for different media.
The vinyl preference, for the same master, is usually attributed to being "warmer", or more like sitting there while someone is playing live. The digital media are described as being "cold" or "impersonal". I think this is mostly due to the presence of upper harmonics, giving the sound a more brash sensation.
I think the higher fidelity gives people more audio "data" than they really need. It's almost the same concept as a strip tease (subjectively) being better than actual nudity - your brain fills in the parts that aren't there, and your imagination is usually better than reality. In psychoacoustics, you can play the harmonics of a note and your brain actually can fill in the fundamental, hearing a note lower than any that was played. So it is not unheard of to have your auditory system do this.
It's not at all odd. Games have become very simply, for entertainment value rather than maxxing your system. Angry birds is repetitive and simple, but it is a little bit of problem solving. Sudoku, you can write a program to solve, but I know lots of women who like that.
Minor puzzles, nothing that takes you 30 minutes to figure out, and no punishment for getting it wrong. Something you can bring up on the subway, or in the back seat of the car, play for a few minutes, and put away.
The games have changed. Zynga puts out half-baked copies of other peoples' games, and what sticks gets kept.
First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either
"among other things"
"I copied and pasted from the article", or
"I'm a first year law student"
In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.
The Mythical Man Month suggests it won't get much faster no matter how many David Boies you throw at a problem, and at a certain point you'd actually be slowing the process down.
If this is the same case, and I'm pretty sure it is, that was for educational use, which already has "fair use" exemptions. This case has nothing to do with education. It is, generally speaking and depending on which side you ask, about willful infringement and economical advantage gained by copying.
Using that case as a reference is such a gross oversimplification that it is meaningless to discuss in the same context.
Here's where everyone, including you, fails in this argument. Philosophy and Science are completely unrelated. You cannot prove that there is no creator. Until we understand everything about every particle, there is still an unknown factor. And even then, one can make the argument that something created the framework for everything we see.
People saying we should not teach Creationism are advocating a Science-based education, which uses observed evidence as a basis for the Big Bang theory, coalescing stellar and planetary matter, and evolution of life. This belongs in Science class.
Creationism is nothing to do with science, and no philosophic argument you make is going to put it into a science class. It would belong in some sort of Philosophy class, or Religious studies. If you are going to advocate teaching it, you are going to have to clarify this point, or you will get exactly the arguments you have now. Much better to argue, from the beginning, that it cannot replace nor coexist with a science-based education.
Further, it is going to be placed later in a child's education. You can very easily show the laws of motion to a very young child, because they are concrete ideas. Push a ball into another ball, or kick it, and you can see the effect of forces. They can think concretely. But abstract ideas such as a creator simply are beyond a child's thought process. So the science education will begin early, and then you might be able to fit the entire Creationist argument into a week of Philosophy class once they are ready for it.
And the big problem that most people have is that Creationism does not promote itself as philosophy. I have read countless arguments using very bad pseudo-science, which has no business in any classroom. Things like Kirk Cameron's argument that bananas are shaped to fit into a human hand, therefore they were intelligently designed with humans in mind. Only someone who already believed in the idea of an intelligent creator would come to that conclusion.
Strip out the pseudo-science, put it in a Philosophy class, and maybe people could go with it. But it is not going into a science class, and it is not going to be taught alongside logical conclusions based on scientific rigor.
Two different arguments, mutually exclusive. "No teaching Creationism in science class, or instead of science" against "Teach it at some point so that children are exposed to different ideas".
Now, go forth and make your arguments. But please keep them in the proper knowledge domain.
Noah Snavely is credited in both places, and this article cites "continuing research" into an "emerging field". The 2008 "Photo Tourism" project was turned into PhotoSynth, but the other stuff seems new.
You missed the point. Microsoft has already been caught doing exactly this - limiting browser choice. They were required to add a browser selection option to their OS. In other words, they are doing the same thing as before.
Apple should not have such a requirement, because they did not have an anti-trust suit lost.
This is the answer to the question, why is Microsoft being held to a different standard? Techies are keeping their eye on Microsoft, having been stung before. As you say, their share is small. At least for now.
And of course Mozilla wants to make as much noise as possible. So the other part of the answer is, look at the source of the complaint. Now it should be obvious why the double standard.
Typical cube farm - think Wal-Mart filled with cubicals. Overhead lighting, nothing local. It would discourage people from the "I'll plug my phone in at work" mentality.
Do you really think they could watch all of those in just 9 days? If they could, they would not remember any of it.
I'd mod you off topic, but since people have already replied I decided I'd try to find out what relevance this has to bandwidth caps outside of turning an article into a word problem, solving it, and posting it for everyone to see.
Spock: That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Kirk: Or the one.
Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals. You make a joke, but that is the way the TSA works. We are not people, we are statistics. There is no way to treat us as individuals.
Anyone who works with familiar co-workers every day, herding strangers through life, will never see us as individuals. Police, TSA, fast food - there is a bond with the people you know, the "us", and everyone else is "them".
It is psychologically impossible for the TSA as a whole to be sympathetic to individual situations, including mental illness and prosthetics or implants. It will never happen because of our innate need to group people socially, without drastic changes.
If it will not work, abolish it, that is the only other option.
The quote at the bottom should have resolved all doubt, and the flow of the article clearly went from "Mistake" in the title to explaining "errors", to "mutations" and finally "duplication":
"We may have been looking at the wrong types of mutations to explain human and great ape differences," study researcher Evan Eichler, of the University of Washington, said in a statement. "These episodic and large duplication events could have allowed for radical â" potentially Earth-shattering â" changes in brain development and brain function."
Wave/particle duality arose because we defined particles, and then discovered the behavior of waves separately. We painted ourselves into that corner, and we observed both at the same time and could not explain it any other way. We would have to tear down everything we know and start again. Not that that is bad, just hard.
Natural selection has two forces acting on it. External pressure to adapt, such as changing environment (predators, chemicals, anything at all), is the real force. "Wanting to survive" is, like centrifugal force, only real in the context of the specific organism under pressure. I don't think there is a duality here, just using a metaphor to suggest that some "survival instinct" is present even at a cellular level. It helps when discussing things like slime molds, in which some individuals essentially sacrifice themselves to become stalks. There is no simultaneous wanting and lack thereof. Dawkins made it clear he was using it metaphorically, even if he didn't use that word.
Sadly, there are few people who have the luxury of completing two master's level degrees and optionally a doctorate.
What, no, that's just plain silly. In order for advanced degrees to have value, you have to work in the field, then either get the degree while working, or take time off work. Not right out of undergrad.
Your hypothetical monster combo is going to be 40 years old at a minimum in order to be of any value. You can get the degrees quickly, and then spend 5 years working before you really understand how it works.
Only your last line makes sense. Get the IT based degree, and partner with someone who has the business sense. The difference is, you are equal partners. Not the IT guy in the dungeon being told what to do. That is a powerful combination, two people who can complement each other. Not a single monstrosity who thinks he knows everything and has to consult no one.
You're right, it should be allowed, and even required in the boardroom to speak freely. But it is not customary, and doing so will get you booted off the board.
There should be a place for this sort of thing in the boardroom, but there is not currently in most of them.
That's how I read the comment, and it makes more sense that way.
I hate to nitpick, but that's not the Sabbath. Jews think it's Saturday, Christians think it's Sunday. That doesn't mean one or the other is right, and for the non-Christian, non-Jew audience, you might clarify.
They are closed on the Jewish Sabbath, actually Shabbat, which is a specific day, not the Sabbath which is dependent on religious affiliation.
The history of who decided when it is, is kinda important for when you are describing it. Chick-fil-A is closed on one Sabbath, B&H is closed on the other. It helps to specify when there is disagreement, in this case, I would not even use "Sabbath" generically, I would specify which religion. Or if discussing Judaism, Shabbat might be better since that's the way I have read it. Plus you score Lebowski fan points.
Why, I called them "Bastards" just this week. I call them something or other once a day and twice on Sunday.
By the time they read their mail, however, their lobbyist already got to them in person, and convinced them to vote the other way. And the vote happened.
I usually get a mail 4-6 weeks later explaining why their vote was the only option, in vagueries best left to poets and politicians.
You have to look at more than just the policies vs. cost. The first thought I had is, it represents the difficulty of getting a product into a country. Norway, Finland, and Sweden are not ideal growing places, so you have to import from far away. Even if it were 100% legal to cultivate, sell, and consume, you would probably have to import to meet demand. And when you import, you have to either fly or ship over international waters, or avoid detection when crossing borders where they frown on those sorts of things.
Basically you have north-west Europe, plus USA. Geography and climate explain more of the groupings than policy does. So why does USA stick out? The only obvious answer is policy. Mexico should be similar based on geography, but the economy is depressed. Canada is economically similar, why is it not right next to USA?
There is no proof of anything here. All we can do is try to read into it what we can, and until someone puts forth a better explanation I think policy is a pretty good explanation. Especially if you look at the days of alcohol prohibition, and all of the money and power that locally supplied goods concentrated.
People expect to be well paid to risk a lengthy sentence, and anything that adds to the risk adds to the price. Policy is not the only added risk, but it is a differentiator.
The researcher quoted is not saying that atheists will have more analysis than intuition. It is hinting at a possible link between religiousness and intuition, suggesting that intuition is more dominant in religious believers.
That is completely different from intuition being missing from non-believers. Since the measurements have not been done (or at least not known to this person who was quoted), it could be possible to have far greater analytic than intuitive capacity, but suspend it long enough to maintain belief. And just as possible to have greater intuition, but fall back to analysis when given time to think about it.
I won't belabor the point with extensive citations, but you can search for yourself how religion can enter the person into a meditative state. That is, if you decide to believe (or do so out of custom), you actually turn off your brain for a little while. The analytic portions don't have the opportunity to discard information, or detect contradictions. This allows for the sort of cognitive dissonance we see from time to time. When your religion sparks up, analysis may be shutting down.
Also, you are an anecdote, you could be the statistical outlier. You could be the only intuitive atheist out there, and as soon as you say you know plenty others I can claim you may know every intuitive atheist that exists. Until this guy does more science it's all just typing.
This comment is a perfect example of what this study is trying to show. You are a human, and are required to adhere to the "don't kill people" rule.
The deity of a religion can do all sorts of stuff that may not make sense to you, and you don't analyze it if you have faith.
If you have faith that the message is real, you will follow the instructions and save yourself. If you think to yourself, what silly people these are thinking blood above the door will protect them from an imaginary angel? You used analytic thinking rather than faith.
Set aside your brain, believe in a deity for a minute, and accept that anything the deity does is for the best. I bet you will come to a different conclusion. Put your brain back in, and you will change your mind again. That's what the article is all about.
Pointless diatribe. If someone wanted to pay me to make a pointless product, I absolutely would take their money and do the very best job I could. I would make a screen door for a submarine, and make sure it fit and was easy to install.
I don't care what I'm writing, as long as I'm writing. The more pointless it is, the more fun I usually have. Whether it is effective or not is secondary to the paycheck, and usually takes a back seat to the fun. Effectiveness is a business problem, not a code problem.
Take their money, and document all the ways people could get around it so they can't say you implemented an easily defeatable product.
And most importantly, come to technical venues and support or refute peoples' posts so readers know more about it.
I'm inclined not to believe your oversimplification. I remember elementary school math, with whole chapters devoted to teaching the number line. Concepts such as greater/less, constant distance, visual estimation, and numberless comparisons are, or were, part of what gets taught in a school setting.
If you don't have the concept of a number line already, is it really that intuitive to stack 1 cup on top of another and consider it a measurement rather than an amount? Stacking things and coming up with a ruler based on that stacking seem like they are fairly distinct concepts, that one won't lead to the other.
On the other side of the coin, it's a lot easier to make money when your customers can't just download and compile your code.
Situations like this actually are a pretty good balance between keeping the source closed, but allowing customers to verify that it doesn't have any secret back doors or obvious security flaws. Many companies do this, and foreign governments and companies seem okay with the arrangement.
Slashdot Mirror
You repeated this as if it were true. I can see how an extrovert might think it's true, but I can't find any backing for it at all. People who are seeking contact may use the internet instead of face to face, but that does not increase your desire for contact. Everything I have read suggests depressed people avoid contact.
The logical conclusion is that both you and GGP naturally seek out people, and cannot conceive of someone not having that urge to connect. Another conclusion is that you both are confusing depression with loneliness. Feeling alone can lead to depression, or depression can cause you to cut back on social activities, feeding loneliness. But they are separate. Introverts do not get lonely normally, and there is nothing inherent to depression which would change your loneliness threshold.
It was a sensible reply, and I would urge you to find some citation for your claim (quoted). You may agree, after being unable to find a citation. I am sure a few people do this, but I would expect a percentage, and one that is greater than 50%. From your statement, with no wiggle room I'd expect more like 85% of depressed people do everything they can to connect with people. Here's a starting point: do depressed extroverts really go to lots of parties?
Pretty sure that's irrelevant to the point GP was making. For the same master, vinyl has lower fidelity than a CD. You're talking about using a different master for different media.
The vinyl preference, for the same master, is usually attributed to being "warmer", or more like sitting there while someone is playing live. The digital media are described as being "cold" or "impersonal". I think this is mostly due to the presence of upper harmonics, giving the sound a more brash sensation.
I think the higher fidelity gives people more audio "data" than they really need. It's almost the same concept as a strip tease (subjectively) being better than actual nudity - your brain fills in the parts that aren't there, and your imagination is usually better than reality. In psychoacoustics, you can play the harmonics of a note and your brain actually can fill in the fundamental, hearing a note lower than any that was played. So it is not unheard of to have your auditory system do this.
It's not at all odd. Games have become very simply, for entertainment value rather than maxxing your system. Angry birds is repetitive and simple, but it is a little bit of problem solving. Sudoku, you can write a program to solve, but I know lots of women who like that.
Minor puzzles, nothing that takes you 30 minutes to figure out, and no punishment for getting it wrong. Something you can bring up on the subway, or in the back seat of the car, play for a few minutes, and put away.
The games have changed. Zynga puts out half-baked copies of other peoples' games, and what sticks gets kept.
First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either
In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.
The Mythical Man Month suggests it won't get much faster no matter how many David Boies you throw at a problem, and at a certain point you'd actually be slowing the process down.
If this is the same case, and I'm pretty sure it is, that was for educational use, which already has "fair use" exemptions. This case has nothing to do with education. It is, generally speaking and depending on which side you ask, about willful infringement and economical advantage gained by copying.
Using that case as a reference is such a gross oversimplification that it is meaningless to discuss in the same context.
http://chronicle.com/article/Long-Awaited-Ruling-in/131859
Here's where everyone, including you, fails in this argument. Philosophy and Science are completely unrelated. You cannot prove that there is no creator. Until we understand everything about every particle, there is still an unknown factor. And even then, one can make the argument that something created the framework for everything we see.
People saying we should not teach Creationism are advocating a Science-based education, which uses observed evidence as a basis for the Big Bang theory, coalescing stellar and planetary matter, and evolution of life. This belongs in Science class.
Creationism is nothing to do with science, and no philosophic argument you make is going to put it into a science class. It would belong in some sort of Philosophy class, or Religious studies. If you are going to advocate teaching it, you are going to have to clarify this point, or you will get exactly the arguments you have now. Much better to argue, from the beginning, that it cannot replace nor coexist with a science-based education.
Further, it is going to be placed later in a child's education. You can very easily show the laws of motion to a very young child, because they are concrete ideas. Push a ball into another ball, or kick it, and you can see the effect of forces. They can think concretely. But abstract ideas such as a creator simply are beyond a child's thought process. So the science education will begin early, and then you might be able to fit the entire Creationist argument into a week of Philosophy class once they are ready for it.
And the big problem that most people have is that Creationism does not promote itself as philosophy. I have read countless arguments using very bad pseudo-science, which has no business in any classroom. Things like Kirk Cameron's argument that bananas are shaped to fit into a human hand, therefore they were intelligently designed with humans in mind. Only someone who already believed in the idea of an intelligent creator would come to that conclusion.
Strip out the pseudo-science, put it in a Philosophy class, and maybe people could go with it. But it is not going into a science class, and it is not going to be taught alongside logical conclusions based on scientific rigor.
Two different arguments, mutually exclusive. "No teaching Creationism in science class, or instead of science" against "Teach it at some point so that children are exposed to different ideas".
Now, go forth and make your arguments. But please keep them in the proper knowledge domain.
Noah Snavely is credited in both places, and this article cites "continuing research" into an "emerging field". The 2008 "Photo Tourism" project was turned into PhotoSynth, but the other stuff seems new.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/phototours/
You missed the point. Microsoft has already been caught doing exactly this - limiting browser choice. They were required to add a browser selection option to their OS. In other words, they are doing the same thing as before.
Apple should not have such a requirement, because they did not have an anti-trust suit lost.
This is the answer to the question, why is Microsoft being held to a different standard? Techies are keeping their eye on Microsoft, having been stung before. As you say, their share is small. At least for now.
And of course Mozilla wants to make as much noise as possible. So the other part of the answer is, look at the source of the complaint. Now it should be obvious why the double standard.
Typical cube farm - think Wal-Mart filled with cubicals. Overhead lighting, nothing local. It would discourage people from the "I'll plug my phone in at work" mentality.
Perfect for the typical call center.
Do you really think they could watch all of those in just 9 days? If they could, they would not remember any of it.
I'd mod you off topic, but since people have already replied I decided I'd try to find out what relevance this has to bandwidth caps outside of turning an article into a word problem, solving it, and posting it for everyone to see.
2 mod points left. Do I point out that you're an idiot for confusing the adjective with the noun? Or do I mod you into oblivion?
Or do I mod you, and wait till tomorrow and comment if no one else has, potentially removing my downmod? Decisions...
Spock: That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Kirk: Or the one.
Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals. You make a joke, but that is the way the TSA works. We are not people, we are statistics. There is no way to treat us as individuals.
Anyone who works with familiar co-workers every day, herding strangers through life, will never see us as individuals. Police, TSA, fast food - there is a bond with the people you know, the "us", and everyone else is "them".
It is psychologically impossible for the TSA as a whole to be sympathetic to individual situations, including mental illness and prosthetics or implants. It will never happen because of our innate need to group people socially, without drastic changes.
If it will not work, abolish it, that is the only other option.
The quote at the bottom should have resolved all doubt, and the flow of the article clearly went from "Mistake" in the title to explaining "errors", to "mutations" and finally "duplication":
Wave/particle duality arose because we defined particles, and then discovered the behavior of waves separately. We painted ourselves into that corner, and we observed both at the same time and could not explain it any other way. We would have to tear down everything we know and start again. Not that that is bad, just hard.
Natural selection has two forces acting on it. External pressure to adapt, such as changing environment (predators, chemicals, anything at all), is the real force. "Wanting to survive" is, like centrifugal force, only real in the context of the specific organism under pressure. I don't think there is a duality here, just using a metaphor to suggest that some "survival instinct" is present even at a cellular level. It helps when discussing things like slime molds, in which some individuals essentially sacrifice themselves to become stalks. There is no simultaneous wanting and lack thereof. Dawkins made it clear he was using it metaphorically, even if he didn't use that word.
Sadly, there are few people who have the luxury of completing two master's level degrees and optionally a doctorate.
What, no, that's just plain silly. In order for advanced degrees to have value, you have to work in the field, then either get the degree while working, or take time off work. Not right out of undergrad.
Your hypothetical monster combo is going to be 40 years old at a minimum in order to be of any value. You can get the degrees quickly, and then spend 5 years working before you really understand how it works.
Only your last line makes sense. Get the IT based degree, and partner with someone who has the business sense. The difference is, you are equal partners. Not the IT guy in the dungeon being told what to do. That is a powerful combination, two people who can complement each other. Not a single monstrosity who thinks he knows everything and has to consult no one.
You're right, it should be allowed, and even required in the boardroom to speak freely. But it is not customary, and doing so will get you booted off the board.
There should be a place for this sort of thing in the boardroom, but there is not currently in most of them.
That's how I read the comment, and it makes more sense that way.
I hate to nitpick, but that's not the Sabbath. Jews think it's Saturday, Christians think it's Sunday. That doesn't mean one or the other is right, and for the non-Christian, non-Jew audience, you might clarify.
They are closed on the Jewish Sabbath, actually Shabbat, which is a specific day, not the Sabbath which is dependent on religious affiliation.
The history of who decided when it is, is kinda important for when you are describing it. Chick-fil-A is closed on one Sabbath, B&H is closed on the other. It helps to specify when there is disagreement, in this case, I would not even use "Sabbath" generically, I would specify which religion. Or if discussing Judaism, Shabbat might be better since that's the way I have read it. Plus you score Lebowski fan points.
Why, I called them "Bastards" just this week. I call them something or other once a day and twice on Sunday.
By the time they read their mail, however, their lobbyist already got to them in person, and convinced them to vote the other way. And the vote happened.
I usually get a mail 4-6 weeks later explaining why their vote was the only option, in vagueries best left to poets and politicians.
You have to look at more than just the policies vs. cost. The first thought I had is, it represents the difficulty of getting a product into a country. Norway, Finland, and Sweden are not ideal growing places, so you have to import from far away. Even if it were 100% legal to cultivate, sell, and consume, you would probably have to import to meet demand. And when you import, you have to either fly or ship over international waters, or avoid detection when crossing borders where they frown on those sorts of things.
Basically you have north-west Europe, plus USA. Geography and climate explain more of the groupings than policy does. So why does USA stick out? The only obvious answer is policy. Mexico should be similar based on geography, but the economy is depressed. Canada is economically similar, why is it not right next to USA?
There is no proof of anything here. All we can do is try to read into it what we can, and until someone puts forth a better explanation I think policy is a pretty good explanation. Especially if you look at the days of alcohol prohibition, and all of the money and power that locally supplied goods concentrated.
People expect to be well paid to risk a lengthy sentence, and anything that adds to the risk adds to the price. Policy is not the only added risk, but it is a differentiator.
And then they change it every few months. So it's still a secret.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/01/23/1242247/google-updates-algorithm-to-punish-websites-with-excessive-ads
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/google-to-penalize-websites-that-abuse-seo/
The researcher quoted is not saying that atheists will have more analysis than intuition. It is hinting at a possible link between religiousness and intuition, suggesting that intuition is more dominant in religious believers.
That is completely different from intuition being missing from non-believers. Since the measurements have not been done (or at least not known to this person who was quoted), it could be possible to have far greater analytic than intuitive capacity, but suspend it long enough to maintain belief. And just as possible to have greater intuition, but fall back to analysis when given time to think about it.
I won't belabor the point with extensive citations, but you can search for yourself how religion can enter the person into a meditative state. That is, if you decide to believe (or do so out of custom), you actually turn off your brain for a little while. The analytic portions don't have the opportunity to discard information, or detect contradictions. This allows for the sort of cognitive dissonance we see from time to time. When your religion sparks up, analysis may be shutting down.
Also, you are an anecdote, you could be the statistical outlier. You could be the only intuitive atheist out there, and as soon as you say you know plenty others I can claim you may know every intuitive atheist that exists. Until this guy does more science it's all just typing.
This comment is a perfect example of what this study is trying to show. You are a human, and are required to adhere to the "don't kill people" rule.
The deity of a religion can do all sorts of stuff that may not make sense to you, and you don't analyze it if you have faith.
If you have faith that the message is real, you will follow the instructions and save yourself. If you think to yourself, what silly people these are thinking blood above the door will protect them from an imaginary angel? You used analytic thinking rather than faith.
Set aside your brain, believe in a deity for a minute, and accept that anything the deity does is for the best. I bet you will come to a different conclusion. Put your brain back in, and you will change your mind again. That's what the article is all about.
Pointless diatribe. If someone wanted to pay me to make a pointless product, I absolutely would take their money and do the very best job I could. I would make a screen door for a submarine, and make sure it fit and was easy to install.
I don't care what I'm writing, as long as I'm writing. The more pointless it is, the more fun I usually have. Whether it is effective or not is secondary to the paycheck, and usually takes a back seat to the fun. Effectiveness is a business problem, not a code problem.
Take their money, and document all the ways people could get around it so they can't say you implemented an easily defeatable product.
And most importantly, come to technical venues and support or refute peoples' posts so readers know more about it.
I'm inclined not to believe your oversimplification. I remember elementary school math, with whole chapters devoted to teaching the number line. Concepts such as greater/less, constant distance, visual estimation, and numberless comparisons are, or were, part of what gets taught in a school setting.
If you don't have the concept of a number line already, is it really that intuitive to stack 1 cup on top of another and consider it a measurement rather than an amount? Stacking things and coming up with a ruler based on that stacking seem like they are fairly distinct concepts, that one won't lead to the other.
On the other side of the coin, it's a lot easier to make money when your customers can't just download and compile your code.
Situations like this actually are a pretty good balance between keeping the source closed, but allowing customers to verify that it doesn't have any secret back doors or obvious security flaws. Many companies do this, and foreign governments and companies seem okay with the arrangement.