The squirrel was not aware that it bugged you, and dogs and cats do not pass the mirror test. That has been shown time and time again and I challenge you to cite a study showing otherwise. And I'm not talking about some pet owner with a youtube video that he declares to show his pet passing.
I haven't, but according to the summary, I suppose it's only a matter of time. I never knew I had it in me.
Re:I guess more animals have humour than one belie
on
The Science of Humor
·
· Score: 1
I think you're projecting human emotions on to that cat. For a cat to feel embarrassed it would have to be able to understand that other creatures have thoughts, which is a capability that has only been found in humans and the other great apes. Cats (& dogs) definitely have emotions, I've had enough of them to be sure of that, but I don't think shame is one of them. If they truly felt ashamed, then my dog wouldn't keep getting up on the leather couch when I'm gone. Oh, sure, she puts on a good show of being sorry when I get home, but I've learned to recognize that as typical pack behavior -- being submissive when the pack leader is mad at you. She doesn't actually regret getting her fur all over the couch, otherwise she'd stop doing it.
Re:Yet another piece of junk science ...
on
The Science of Humor
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You're projecting. The squirrel didn't understand that it was inserting characters into your stream of text and annoying you. He didn't understand he was pranking you. All he understood was that you were just sitting there wiggling your fingers for some reason, and he could make you stop and pay attention to him for a bit by stepping on the clicky surface.
Animals play for some pretty well established reasons, reasons which are largely the same for (young) humans. It builds social skills, locomotive skills, and (where objects are involved) fine motor control. But for them to enjoy teasing and pranking each other, they'd need to have thoughts about another creature's thoughts. Humans are able to to take this out to the fourth or fifth order before getting confused ("I know that Bob knows that Sue knows that Bob knows that I know..."). With animals, great apes have been shown capable of second-order beliefs (but no further), and no other animals have demonstrated this capacity at all. This is unsurprising, since very few animals have even been able to demonstrate self-awareness with the well-known mirror test.
There is no doubt that some animals are smart and self-aware. Great apes, dolphins, corvids, and elephants have all demonstrated self-awareness, and I'm in no way suggesting that they are mindless automatons the way some philosophers once believed. But you're attributing a much higher level of thought to them, one which scientists have often tested for and never found (except in great apes).
This is for the future. It won't even be done for over twenty years. When this railway is at its peak, California will haves tens of millions more people (more demand) and jet fuel will be much more expensive (less supply). Still think you could just give away a bunch of tickets?
But hey, it's way easier to scream and holler about how evil UNIONS are, then it is to actually plan for the future.
We have two political parties because our election system -- with its winner-take-all, no run-off rules -- naturally gravitates towards a two party system.
We have a free press. Just because you don't like what some branches of the press report doesn't mean they aren't free.
And you're claiming that books and music are censored? Have you even been to America, or do you base all your opinions off the crap you read on Slashdot? Your English makes it clear that you aren't an American, and based on how distorted your view is, I'd guess that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the country.
Are you suggesting that computers are more complex than airplanes? Maybe if you're talking about the nuts & bolts of how the silicon works, but at the sysadmin level, no way. If my email client is crashing, that is not a problem on a level with figuring out why an airplane went down. I expect the IT department to be able to fix it out without reinstalling Windows. If they can't, then I think I'm justified in criticizing them.
If the government set up such a program, we'd all chip in to give you the bare necessities of life. If you want more, you need to work for it. Pretty simple, actually.
Hahaha, nice. Falsely accuse me of trying to include Sept 11, then mod me troll for setting the record straight. Much easier than actually trying to make a point.
Okay, let's work off these statistics, since you at least provided some. However, your math is off.
First of all, you are assuming that there are no repeat offenders. The number of rapists will almost certainly be less than the number of rapes. Secondly, you assume they're evenly distributed across society. That seems unlikely. I'm sure that there are certain demographics (poor people, college students, gang members) that are more likely to be rapists and less likely to be working for the government. So as a rough estimate, it would work out to 2 or less rapes per year, to prevent a terrorist attack.
Now you need to weigh rapes against murders. Murders are pretty obviously worse, so allowing two rapes to prevent one murder is a good trade. Which means that if this system saves just one life per year, it's a good thing. If it prevents the next Fort Hood shooting, then it's paid for itself for over a decade.
No, dipshit, I specifically didn't include Sept 11, because it's an outlier. My original point, still unchanged, is that the notion that there are a bunch of perverted government agents out there, using their systems to track down people to rape, is absurd fear-mongering. You, being the liar you are, came in and tried to confuse the issue by giving out numbers for EVERY RAPE IN THE COUNTRY, as if the government is responsible for them all.
Your statistics are irrelevant. You may as well rattle off the number of murders in Bolivia. You need to compare the number of people hurt by terrorists to the number of people hurt by perverted government agents using the tools of their job. That is the relevant statistic. And use a ten year window, because both incidents are rare and we need to use a larger window to get a better sample size.
See, you're doing the same thing with the underhanded FUD, most likely without even realizing it. You suggest that if "ones views differ from those of the CIA" they're gonna come and getcha! Hey, your views differ from theirs, I'm sure. Have they come to disappear you yet?
It's all fear-mongering by people who watch too many dystopian movies and on some level want their lives to be that interesting. The fact is that the real problem with all this new security is that it's expensive and doesn't work. All a would-be terrorist needs to do is buy a gun, walk in some place, and start shooting. It happened at Ft Hood, it happened to Dr. Tiller, it happened at Gifford's rally (though that was more a crazy person than a terrorist, but the methods and effects are the same), and so on. Short of strict gun control laws, which will never get passed, there's no way to stop this.
These fears that the government is out to get you are foolish and a distraction. The government does just fine controlling a slim majority of people through fear of others and ignoring the rest who fight back (e.g. the people in Wisconsin, the Occupy movement, and anti-Iraq War protests). The cops can beat or harass you with impunity, because they know enough of the populace is controlled that you'll never find a 12 person jury to convict.
1984 was nonsense. A good book, but totally unrealistic. The rich and powerful have found much better ways to control the public, and they are far more effective than mind-reading TV screens.
Why should I be outraged over this? There's plenty of bad stuff going on in this country to be upset over. Having the government develop a system to efficiently collate the data they already have doesn't seem like a bad thing at all.
Oh come on. It's a system designed by geeky engineers. They gave it a cute name. That doesn't mean that the government is equivalent to a fallen angel bent on dominating the world.
All they're doing here is collating the info they already have. You can object to them gathering info, but how is it remotely sane to complain about them efficiently using the info they've collected? Are you really claiming that our liberties should be protected by a mess of paperwork?
Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?
Yes. Yes, I do. The whole "pervert around every corner just waiting to rape YOUR DAUGHTER!" argument is every bit as exploitative and dishonest as terrorism scare-mongering.
I've spent a lot of time in the Philippines, and can absolutely confirm your first four points. Filipinos are very friendly towards Americans, much moreso than the Indians, Japanese, and Chinese I've worked with. A lot of their TV programming is from America (the ones I spoke with particularly liked 30 Rock and The Office) which helps them to develop that idiomatic understanding of the language.
However, blaming Americans' bad attitude is foolish. The culprit is corporate greed. If hard work prevented outsourcing, and Filipinos are such hard workers (they are), then why did my company just lay off 50% of its Filipino workforce (thousands of people) and move the jobs to China?
Explorers on ships did. What do you think would have happened to Columbus if he got lost out there, or hit a storm that broke a mast, or an extended period with insufficient wind? You can't drink seawater. Sure, he could at least count on an endless supply of oxygen, but that's cold comfort to someone dying of dehydration in the middle of an ocean.
Responding to each of your counterpoints, because they're all horribly flawed:
2) False dichotomy. The choices aren't "pirate the game" or "ignore the studio utterly". Maybe some pirates wouldn't have bought the game, but others would have. 3) There has to be a disincentive for being cheap (i.e. not getting the things you choose not to pay for), otherwise everyone will choose not to pay. 4) Copyright is necessary. It needs reforms, but to think we could do without it entirely is childish. People who make things need to be able to get money for those things, instead of being forced to beg for donations. 5) It's also a foregone conclusion that there is rape and murder in the world. That doesn't mean you should participate. 7) Yes, games have demos. Most games in fact. Sometimes they're called betas. And why the fuck does it matter if the demo comes out after the game? How does that make it less helpful? Do you really have to decide whether or not to buy each game on its release day? 8) It's hyperbole, dipshit. His point was that some pirates seem to think that as long as the developers are making enough money to stay in business, it doesn't matter if they pirate the game. 11) We didn't have computers back then, so piracy was impossible. No one was downloading MP3s of Bing Crosby. Believe it or not, laws that work in one time period might not work in others! 12) Yes, people have. On this site, in fact. They tend to insist, with no evidence, that added sales from people who use a pirated copy as a demo outweigh any lost sales, and thus piracy is always a net positive. 14) Two wrongs always make a right! Also, most game devs aren't exactly megacorps. They're small studios of young men and women hoping to make a living doing what they love. While that may not apply to the people behind MW3 or Madden 2011, those aren't most games.
I like how you weren't able to even argue the other points, so you just dismissed them as non sequiturs. Very classy.
And 90 minutes later, YouTube page had 123963 views, thereby confirming that absolutely no one in/. every clicks the links in the summary (or that YouTube only updates that number every few hours, but I choose the believe the first option).
Slashdot Mirror
The squirrel was not aware that it bugged you, and dogs and cats do not pass the mirror test. That has been shown time and time again and I challenge you to cite a study showing otherwise. And I'm not talking about some pet owner with a youtube video that he declares to show his pet passing.
You are being irrational.
I haven't, but according to the summary, I suppose it's only a matter of time. I never knew I had it in me.
I think you're projecting human emotions on to that cat. For a cat to feel embarrassed it would have to be able to understand that other creatures have thoughts, which is a capability that has only been found in humans and the other great apes. Cats (& dogs) definitely have emotions, I've had enough of them to be sure of that, but I don't think shame is one of them. If they truly felt ashamed, then my dog wouldn't keep getting up on the leather couch when I'm gone. Oh, sure, she puts on a good show of being sorry when I get home, but I've learned to recognize that as typical pack behavior -- being submissive when the pack leader is mad at you. She doesn't actually regret getting her fur all over the couch, otherwise she'd stop doing it.
You're projecting. The squirrel didn't understand that it was inserting characters into your stream of text and annoying you. He didn't understand he was pranking you. All he understood was that you were just sitting there wiggling your fingers for some reason, and he could make you stop and pay attention to him for a bit by stepping on the clicky surface.
Animals play for some pretty well established reasons, reasons which are largely the same for (young) humans. It builds social skills, locomotive skills, and (where objects are involved) fine motor control. But for them to enjoy teasing and pranking each other, they'd need to have thoughts about another creature's thoughts. Humans are able to to take this out to the fourth or fifth order before getting confused ("I know that Bob knows that Sue knows that Bob knows that I know..."). With animals, great apes have been shown capable of second-order beliefs (but no further), and no other animals have demonstrated this capacity at all. This is unsurprising, since very few animals have even been able to demonstrate self-awareness with the well-known mirror test.
There is no doubt that some animals are smart and self-aware. Great apes, dolphins, corvids, and elephants have all demonstrated self-awareness, and I'm in no way suggesting that they are mindless automatons the way some philosophers once believed. But you're attributing a much higher level of thought to them, one which scientists have often tested for and never found (except in great apes).
This is for the future. It won't even be done for over twenty years. When this railway is at its peak, California will haves tens of millions more people (more demand) and jet fuel will be much more expensive (less supply). Still think you could just give away a bunch of tickets?
But hey, it's way easier to scream and holler about how evil UNIONS are, then it is to actually plan for the future.
High speed bullet trains probably require a bit more precision than the old steam engines.
Also, where do you get 30 years from?
Nonsense.
We have two political parties because our election system -- with its winner-take-all, no run-off rules -- naturally gravitates towards a two party system.
We have a free press. Just because you don't like what some branches of the press report doesn't mean they aren't free.
And you're claiming that books and music are censored? Have you even been to America, or do you base all your opinions off the crap you read on Slashdot? Your English makes it clear that you aren't an American, and based on how distorted your view is, I'd guess that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the country.
Are you suggesting that computers are more complex than airplanes? Maybe if you're talking about the nuts & bolts of how the silicon works, but at the sysadmin level, no way. If my email client is crashing, that is not a problem on a level with figuring out why an airplane went down. I expect the IT department to be able to fix it out without reinstalling Windows. If they can't, then I think I'm justified in criticizing them.
If the government set up such a program, we'd all chip in to give you the bare necessities of life. If you want more, you need to work for it. Pretty simple, actually.
Hahaha, nice. Falsely accuse me of trying to include Sept 11, then mod me troll for setting the record straight. Much easier than actually trying to make a point.
Okay, let's work off these statistics, since you at least provided some. However, your math is off.
First of all, you are assuming that there are no repeat offenders. The number of rapists will almost certainly be less than the number of rapes. Secondly, you assume they're evenly distributed across society. That seems unlikely. I'm sure that there are certain demographics (poor people, college students, gang members) that are more likely to be rapists and less likely to be working for the government. So as a rough estimate, it would work out to 2 or less rapes per year, to prevent a terrorist attack.
Now you need to weigh rapes against murders. Murders are pretty obviously worse, so allowing two rapes to prevent one murder is a good trade. Which means that if this system saves just one life per year, it's a good thing. If it prevents the next Fort Hood shooting, then it's paid for itself for over a decade.
No, dipshit, I specifically didn't include Sept 11, because it's an outlier. My original point, still unchanged, is that the notion that there are a bunch of perverted government agents out there, using their systems to track down people to rape, is absurd fear-mongering. You, being the liar you are, came in and tried to confuse the issue by giving out numbers for EVERY RAPE IN THE COUNTRY, as if the government is responsible for them all.
Your statistics are irrelevant. You may as well rattle off the number of murders in Bolivia. You need to compare the number of people hurt by terrorists to the number of people hurt by perverted government agents using the tools of their job. That is the relevant statistic. And use a ten year window, because both incidents are rare and we need to use a larger window to get a better sample size.
See, you're doing the same thing with the underhanded FUD, most likely without even realizing it. You suggest that if "ones views differ from those of the CIA" they're gonna come and getcha! Hey, your views differ from theirs, I'm sure. Have they come to disappear you yet?
It's all fear-mongering by people who watch too many dystopian movies and on some level want their lives to be that interesting. The fact is that the real problem with all this new security is that it's expensive and doesn't work. All a would-be terrorist needs to do is buy a gun, walk in some place, and start shooting. It happened at Ft Hood, it happened to Dr. Tiller, it happened at Gifford's rally (though that was more a crazy person than a terrorist, but the methods and effects are the same), and so on. Short of strict gun control laws, which will never get passed, there's no way to stop this.
These fears that the government is out to get you are foolish and a distraction. The government does just fine controlling a slim majority of people through fear of others and ignoring the rest who fight back (e.g. the people in Wisconsin, the Occupy movement, and anti-Iraq War protests). The cops can beat or harass you with impunity, because they know enough of the populace is controlled that you'll never find a 12 person jury to convict.
1984 was nonsense. A good book, but totally unrealistic. The rich and powerful have found much better ways to control the public, and they are far more effective than mind-reading TV screens.
And Saturn is a planet, therefore my car must be a planet!!! Now I just need to figure out why my Android doesn't look even remotely human.
Why should I be outraged over this? There's plenty of bad stuff going on in this country to be upset over. Having the government develop a system to efficiently collate the data they already have doesn't seem like a bad thing at all.
Oh come on. It's a system designed by geeky engineers. They gave it a cute name. That doesn't mean that the government is equivalent to a fallen angel bent on dominating the world.
All they're doing here is collating the info they already have. You can object to them gathering info, but how is it remotely sane to complain about them efficiently using the info they've collected? Are you really claiming that our liberties should be protected by a mess of paperwork?
How many of those forcible rapes were by intelligence agents who used their work tools as part of the rape, over the past ten years?
Now how many deaths by terrorists in the same time period?
Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?
Yes. Yes, I do. The whole "pervert around every corner just waiting to rape YOUR DAUGHTER!" argument is every bit as exploitative and dishonest as terrorism scare-mongering.
It wasn't a call center that closed. It was a factory.
The Philippines were an American colony, so it still works.
I've spent a lot of time in the Philippines, and can absolutely confirm your first four points. Filipinos are very friendly towards Americans, much moreso than the Indians, Japanese, and Chinese I've worked with. A lot of their TV programming is from America (the ones I spoke with particularly liked 30 Rock and The Office) which helps them to develop that idiomatic understanding of the language.
However, blaming Americans' bad attitude is foolish. The culprit is corporate greed. If hard work prevented outsourcing, and Filipinos are such hard workers (they are), then why did my company just lay off 50% of its Filipino workforce (thousands of people) and move the jobs to China?
Additionally, at least in my experience, Filipinos get paid less than Indians for the same work.
Explorers on ships did. What do you think would have happened to Columbus if he got lost out there, or hit a storm that broke a mast, or an extended period with insufficient wind? You can't drink seawater. Sure, he could at least count on an endless supply of oxygen, but that's cold comfort to someone dying of dehydration in the middle of an ocean.
Responding to each of your counterpoints, because they're all horribly flawed:
2) False dichotomy. The choices aren't "pirate the game" or "ignore the studio utterly". Maybe some pirates wouldn't have bought the game, but others would have.
3) There has to be a disincentive for being cheap (i.e. not getting the things you choose not to pay for), otherwise everyone will choose not to pay.
4) Copyright is necessary. It needs reforms, but to think we could do without it entirely is childish. People who make things need to be able to get money for those things, instead of being forced to beg for donations.
5) It's also a foregone conclusion that there is rape and murder in the world. That doesn't mean you should participate.
7) Yes, games have demos. Most games in fact. Sometimes they're called betas. And why the fuck does it matter if the demo comes out after the game? How does that make it less helpful? Do you really have to decide whether or not to buy each game on its release day?
8) It's hyperbole, dipshit. His point was that some pirates seem to think that as long as the developers are making enough money to stay in business, it doesn't matter if they pirate the game.
11) We didn't have computers back then, so piracy was impossible. No one was downloading MP3s of Bing Crosby. Believe it or not, laws that work in one time period might not work in others!
12) Yes, people have. On this site, in fact. They tend to insist, with no evidence, that added sales from people who use a pirated copy as a demo outweigh any lost sales, and thus piracy is always a net positive.
14) Two wrongs always make a right! Also, most game devs aren't exactly megacorps. They're small studios of young men and women hoping to make a living doing what they love. While that may not apply to the people behind MW3 or Madden 2011, those aren't most games.
I like how you weren't able to even argue the other points, so you just dismissed them as non sequiturs. Very classy.
And 90 minutes later, YouTube page had 123963 views, thereby confirming that absolutely no one in /. every clicks the links in the summary (or that YouTube only updates that number every few hours, but I choose the believe the first option).