Actually, modern research suggests you are at least partially wrong. In fact, less than 5% of people will act that way the majority of the time and regardless of circumstance. Around 15% will almost always act in a fair and equitable manner, even if everyone around them is cheating and acting unfairly. The rest will act fairly when in fair situations, and take advantage only when they see the majority of people around them taking advantage.
Google 'fairness reciprocity economic research.' Most people are not in fact driven primarily by self interest, but by notions of fairness and reciprocity. Look up games theory on wikipedia for an interesting jumping off point if you are interested, read about some of the experimental games played, and how people do not act to maximize their personal benefits, but to create and maintain justice.
We're not all evil, but the belief that 'we're all evil' is itself a primary motivation to act in a selfish fashion.
However, if we saw that those salacious details were in fact common, would we still feel justified in persecuting those people? I think not. Look at the LGBT community: some people think it is a good idea to out others, to violate the privacy of people like themselves in order to demonstrate to non-LGBT folks that being gay is not so very unusual or perverse.
IMHO, privacy is a workaround for the bug in society that allows some people to accumulate far greater access to information and power to act on it than others. If everyone had the same access to information and power to act on it, privacy would be irrelevant. The problem is that our society allows some people to gain immense power over others, and to use that power to limit other people's freedom.
However, there are a number of people who think this situation is right and natural, that the 'better' sorts of people should, in fact, have power over others, and that, in fact, society functions only through a heirarchy of oppression. As long as such people exist and their world-view dominates, I agree, we need privacy.
You seem to be missing my point. It's not that being black isn't obvious, it's that racists don't know many black people and don't see them as fundamentally the same kind of people. They see them as 'other.' Familiarity breeds understanding.
Can you understand why your comment looks like a straw-man to me? It completely misstates my argument.
There is no way to determine whether something is morally wrong or right in an absolute sense. I'm not saying that there are no moral absolutes, just that there is no way for a human to know what they are for sure, in an unambiguous way.
Let's look at the case of Alan Turing. With perfect information and no privacy, would he have been persecuted for homosexuality? Perhaps. But people persecute that which they are unfamiliar with, which they don't understand. If they saw Alan doing the things they do, behaving as they behave, and being a good person, would they still have found his homosexuality strange and repugnant? If everyone knew who was homosexual, including their relatives and close friends, then homosexuality wouldn't be 'other' to them, it would be something that some people they care about do.
Another problem with privacy is that there is no way to guarantee it. There will always be people with more power, more access to information, and less oversight who will be willing and able to violate any guarantee. Privacy, then, becomes a thing for sale. Only those who can afford it will get it. Is that fair?
Yes, people do persecute others for things that I, personally, don't think warrant persecution. But then again, I'm sure that many pedophiles don't think what they do warrants persecution either. Ultimately, who is to judge? Is each man his own judge, arbitrarily deciding what is right for him? Or is society the judge? In either case, mistakes will be made. The question is, which is worse: when a person unjustly goes against the wishes of society, or when a society unjustly persecutes an individual? And which is more likely to happen?
Privacy is not essential to a high quality of life. Having other people merely know everything you do will not decrease your quality of life. To do that, others would have to act on that information in a way that hurts you. If you are confidant that others can not use personal information against you, then there is no need for privacy. For instance, if everyone knew everything about everyone, then everyone would know that someone was using your information against you, and could act against that person.
However, your question does not really address the situation in the article. We all share information with others. If we choose to do so, it is in no way a breach of our privacy. This patent outlines an 'opt-in' method, meaning, there is no breach of privacy, in theory.
However, I am picturing this in action, and the only recommendation I can see a system like this making to people, based on their personal information and the fact that this would be Bilgatus of Borg and the Microsoft Collective producing the software, is: "We think you would enjoy dropping your trousers, bending over, and presenting your lubed up butt hole to Microsoft." So, in practice, I do see this reducing people's quality of life rather than improving it.
Well, the thread IS funny on a meta level because of all the damn 'nigger joke' trolls on Slashdot recently. And (especially if you take ethanol-fueled's comment as sarcastic) it's not really racist, as no actual demeaning jokes were told, it's just a little un-PC.
Not to make excuses, but I'd (hopefully) look less the idiot if the story had anything specific about the nature of Woz's complaints. Or if I knew anything about the Prius drivetrain.
Oh well, being called an idiot is a small price to pay for some education.
Their commentators are "extreme?" Have you seen how they are kicking everyone else's asses in the ratings. Not by a little bit, but Fox News programming regularly destroys competing shows in the ratings. Perhaps it is you who are the extreme one.
Perhaps stupid people like to be spoonfed news from a source that caters to their prejudices? Perhaps smarter people are more eclectic and much more likely to get their news from many different sources?
All you need to do is look at a few polls, you will see that Fox news caters to a minority. The majority of Americans are not small minded, hate-filled, racist trash who believe 'gummint should keep its hands off medicare,' but enough are to make for a lucrative market.
The article wasn't clear on the cause. Glad he stopped by to clear things up.
I've seen this on occasion on other non-Prius cars, you nudge the cruise control up a few times and it just takes off. All the cars it happened with had electronic throttles, maybe that has something to do with it.
Actually, no, I haven't. How is the CVT controlled? When and how does it decide when to trade off torque for speed? Is it computer controlled, or vacuum controlled like a regular automatic?
Anyway, if the Prius has a CVT, then I'm more than likely wrong about the specifics of the issue. I've seen it happen in many cars with cruise control, but they all have regular transmissions.
Still, it's likely a similar issue, where, basically, the throttle and the transmission don't coordinate their actions because they are separate systems controlled through different mechanisms.
If it is 'easily reproducible' as Woz claims, it isn't the same issue Toyota has been talking about. Woz is just trying to get his face out there, he must be missing the spotlight (snicker) after he and Kathy Griffin broke up.
No, I'm convinced this is the decades old bog-standard problem with cruise control, automatic transmissions, and hills. Fixing it would require computerizing the automatic transmission which is more expensive than running it off of hydraulics powered by engine vacuum.
Right, it drops down a gear, then accelerates wildly until at least 5mph over the setpoint, then upshifts, then loses speed, then accelerates... Which is why I downshift when going up a hill. It just maintains the correct speed, with no loss of speed and subsequent 'wild acceleration' to make up for it.
If Woz can reproduce this easily, like he claims, then this is the exact issue he is talking about, and all modern cars do it. Fixing it would require computerizing the automatic transmission rather than running it off of engine pressure. And that would cost money.
I thought everyone who used a cruise control knew about and knew how to deal with this issue. Evidently not.
Really? Mine doesn't. If I hit a steep enough hill, it will lose about 5-10mph, then drop down a gear and 'accelerate wildly' until it is about 5mph over the setpoint. However, if I drop down a gear manually, it will maintain the correct speed.
No, cars with cruise control going up hills will accelerate PAST the setpoint. Mine will go about 5mph over the setpoint going up the hill. Because, as soon as it upshifts, it loses speed again. Which is why you put it into a lower gear, otherwise it will drop 5-10mph under the set point and then 'accelerate wildldy.'
But you really shouldn't be using cruise control on hills anyhow.
Any car will 'accelerate wildly' under cruise control, given the right conditions, i.e. you are going up a hill and it can't maintain speed in the current gear. Here's what you do: manually put the thing into a lower gear before it loses speed. Problem solved.
Good point. However, it is also not an infinite pie. Mmmm, infinite pie...
While it's true that many richer nations are not breeding at replacement rate, they all have net population growth due to immigration. We aren't in any danger of your doomsday 'a half dozen four year olds supporting a billion ninety year olds,' scenario any time soon.
So, thanks for the warning, but I still think we need to do a better job of providing more birth control to developing nations, which is what markdavis was saying. Despite having a variably sized pie, more poor, uneducated people won't create more wealth.
I don't think anyone is claiming we need to tell Italy they should be using more birth control, do you?
Another non-viable approach: an ever growing population of any sort, in an environment of limited resources. You know what else wouldn't be viable? A population of old people supported by NINJA-PANDAS!!!
What does your comment have to do with markdavis's comment? He never said, 'we need to reduce the population through birth control' which is what you seem to be implying. As long as people have a little over a kid apiece on average, there's no problem. People die at every age, and so with replacement rate breeding, there will still be more young people than old people.
Besides, with more old people, there will be more old-people medicine for robots to use as fuel. The robots can support the old people, because they're made of metal, and robots are strong.
This is NOT business as usual. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. The Democrats are more than willing to debate, but what the Republicans are doing is not debate. The voters are desperate for change, though, and the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.
Thankfully, Obama is spearheading a reform of the filibuster. Hopefully, the Democrats will force the Republicans to play their filibuster card over and over again, to demonstrate to the people that the Republican party is the party of NO. That is the answer the Republicans are providing to this country's problems: don't let the Democrats 'score points' by doing anything useful.
However, the Republicans will find that people do not look kindly on people who, though they have no answers or plans of their own, nonetheless obstruct anyone who does.
The FSF likes choice just fine. However, part of choosing is making an informed choice. And the FSF is pointing out that perhaps the iPad is not the best choice. Why are you against the FSF making legitimate complaints? Why are you against them publicizing the issue of DRM? No one is forcing anyone not to buy something. They are merely making recommendations. It almost seems as though you want consumers to make uninformed choices, rather than thinking things through and investigating their purchases. You DO want consumers making informed choices, right?
As we have seen, the Apple store does not guarantee safety. But if consumers like being locked into one provider, they can now make that choice. If this weren't publicized by the FSF, how would all those consumers who want to be locked into one provider even know that Apple was making that possible? The FSF is doing those consumers and Apple a favor, pointing out what a great thing Apple is doing for them.
I'm honestly curious. I'm a sysadmin at a state agency. You know what that is, right? I'm not an officer, I wasn't elected. I'm not the head of the department, nor did I claim to be. I'm just a sysadmin of a very large department.
Why did you think my number would be listed? If you aren't actually IN CYFD, there's no way you could even find it. I'm not the help desk.
Personally, I think you've got a buddy in New Mexico and had him forward an NM number to your number. Besides being fraud, that's an awful lot of work just to try to show somebody up on the Internet.
All kidding and bantering aside, you should seek professional help.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, modern research suggests you are at least partially wrong. In fact, less than 5% of people will act that way the majority of the time and regardless of circumstance. Around 15% will almost always act in a fair and equitable manner, even if everyone around them is cheating and acting unfairly. The rest will act fairly when in fair situations, and take advantage only when they see the majority of people around them taking advantage.
Google 'fairness reciprocity economic research.' Most people are not in fact driven primarily by self interest, but by notions of fairness and reciprocity. Look up games theory on wikipedia for an interesting jumping off point if you are interested, read about some of the experimental games played, and how people do not act to maximize their personal benefits, but to create and maintain justice.
We're not all evil, but the belief that 'we're all evil' is itself a primary motivation to act in a selfish fashion.
...more influence bought by money.
Hey, it's okay when it's 'our guys' doing it. :\
However, if we saw that those salacious details were in fact common, would we still feel justified in persecuting those people? I think not. Look at the LGBT community: some people think it is a good idea to out others, to violate the privacy of people like themselves in order to demonstrate to non-LGBT folks that being gay is not so very unusual or perverse.
IMHO, privacy is a workaround for the bug in society that allows some people to accumulate far greater access to information and power to act on it than others. If everyone had the same access to information and power to act on it, privacy would be irrelevant. The problem is that our society allows some people to gain immense power over others, and to use that power to limit other people's freedom.
However, there are a number of people who think this situation is right and natural, that the 'better' sorts of people should, in fact, have power over others, and that, in fact, society functions only through a heirarchy of oppression. As long as such people exist and their world-view dominates, I agree, we need privacy.
You seem to be missing my point. It's not that being black isn't obvious, it's that racists don't know many black people and don't see them as fundamentally the same kind of people. They see them as 'other.' Familiarity breeds understanding.
Can you understand why your comment looks like a straw-man to me? It completely misstates my argument.
There is no way to determine whether something is morally wrong or right in an absolute sense. I'm not saying that there are no moral absolutes, just that there is no way for a human to know what they are for sure, in an unambiguous way.
Let's look at the case of Alan Turing. With perfect information and no privacy, would he have been persecuted for homosexuality? Perhaps. But people persecute that which they are unfamiliar with, which they don't understand. If they saw Alan doing the things they do, behaving as they behave, and being a good person, would they still have found his homosexuality strange and repugnant? If everyone knew who was homosexual, including their relatives and close friends, then homosexuality wouldn't be 'other' to them, it would be something that some people they care about do.
Another problem with privacy is that there is no way to guarantee it. There will always be people with more power, more access to information, and less oversight who will be willing and able to violate any guarantee. Privacy, then, becomes a thing for sale. Only those who can afford it will get it. Is that fair?
Yes, people do persecute others for things that I, personally, don't think warrant persecution. But then again, I'm sure that many pedophiles don't think what they do warrants persecution either. Ultimately, who is to judge? Is each man his own judge, arbitrarily deciding what is right for him? Or is society the judge? In either case, mistakes will be made. The question is, which is worse: when a person unjustly goes against the wishes of society, or when a society unjustly persecutes an individual? And which is more likely to happen?
Privacy is not essential to a high quality of life. Having other people merely know everything you do will not decrease your quality of life. To do that, others would have to act on that information in a way that hurts you. If you are confidant that others can not use personal information against you, then there is no need for privacy. For instance, if everyone knew everything about everyone, then everyone would know that someone was using your information against you, and could act against that person.
However, your question does not really address the situation in the article. We all share information with others. If we choose to do so, it is in no way a breach of our privacy. This patent outlines an 'opt-in' method, meaning, there is no breach of privacy, in theory.
However, I am picturing this in action, and the only recommendation I can see a system like this making to people, based on their personal information and the fact that this would be Bilgatus of Borg and the Microsoft Collective producing the software, is: "We think you would enjoy dropping your trousers, bending over, and presenting your lubed up butt hole to Microsoft." So, in practice, I do see this reducing people's quality of life rather than improving it.
Well, the thread IS funny on a meta level because of all the damn 'nigger joke' trolls on Slashdot recently. And (especially if you take ethanol-fueled's comment as sarcastic) it's not really racist, as no actual demeaning jokes were told, it's just a little un-PC.
But yeah, having a low UID helps. ;)
Hey, now, I sure wasn't laughing when Sanjay Gupta was the only damn doctor in Haiti, operating on some poor infant, outside, with no equipment.
But yeah, most of the time CNN is kinda funny.
Am I a bad man because this thread made me laugh? Go ahead, mod me troll or what have you, I deserve it.
Good one! Say, what's the reason for the Earthquake in Haiti again? Plate tectonics, or... A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL!!! Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson.
So, I have presented one example of the small minded hate filled racist trash that Fox News viewers love so much. Here's another recent example: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml
Maybe you could give some example to illustrate YOUR point? Yeah, thought not.
Well that makes sense.
Not to make excuses, but I'd (hopefully) look less the idiot if the story had anything specific about the nature of Woz's complaints. Or if I knew anything about the Prius drivetrain.
Oh well, being called an idiot is a small price to pay for some education.
Their commentators are "extreme?" Have you seen how they are kicking everyone else's asses in the ratings. Not by a little bit, but Fox News programming regularly destroys competing shows in the ratings. Perhaps it is you who are the extreme one.
Perhaps stupid people like to be spoonfed news from a source that caters to their prejudices? Perhaps smarter people are more eclectic and much more likely to get their news from many different sources?
All you need to do is look at a few polls, you will see that Fox news caters to a minority. The majority of Americans are not small minded, hate-filled, racist trash who believe 'gummint should keep its hands off medicare,' but enough are to make for a lucrative market.
Plus, they lack cool uniforms and shiny boots.
C|N>K (Those are a pipe and a redirect. I'll let you guess what C, N and K stand for)
The article wasn't clear on the cause. Glad he stopped by to clear things up.
I've seen this on occasion on other non-Prius cars, you nudge the cruise control up a few times and it just takes off. All the cars it happened with had electronic throttles, maybe that has something to do with it.
Actually, no, I haven't. How is the CVT controlled? When and how does it decide when to trade off torque for speed? Is it computer controlled, or vacuum controlled like a regular automatic?
Anyway, if the Prius has a CVT, then I'm more than likely wrong about the specifics of the issue. I've seen it happen in many cars with cruise control, but they all have regular transmissions.
Still, it's likely a similar issue, where, basically, the throttle and the transmission don't coordinate their actions because they are separate systems controlled through different mechanisms.
If it is 'easily reproducible' as Woz claims, it isn't the same issue Toyota has been talking about. Woz is just trying to get his face out there, he must be missing the spotlight (snicker) after he and Kathy Griffin broke up.
No, I'm convinced this is the decades old bog-standard problem with cruise control, automatic transmissions, and hills. Fixing it would require computerizing the automatic transmission which is more expensive than running it off of hydraulics powered by engine vacuum.
Right, it drops down a gear, then accelerates wildly until at least 5mph over the setpoint, then upshifts, then loses speed, then accelerates... Which is why I downshift when going up a hill. It just maintains the correct speed, with no loss of speed and subsequent 'wild acceleration' to make up for it.
If Woz can reproduce this easily, like he claims, then this is the exact issue he is talking about, and all modern cars do it. Fixing it would require computerizing the automatic transmission rather than running it off of engine pressure. And that would cost money.
I thought everyone who used a cruise control knew about and knew how to deal with this issue. Evidently not.
Really? Mine doesn't. If I hit a steep enough hill, it will lose about 5-10mph, then drop down a gear and 'accelerate wildly' until it is about 5mph over the setpoint. However, if I drop down a gear manually, it will maintain the correct speed.
No, cars with cruise control going up hills will accelerate PAST the setpoint. Mine will go about 5mph over the setpoint going up the hill. Because, as soon as it upshifts, it loses speed again. Which is why you put it into a lower gear, otherwise it will drop 5-10mph under the set point and then 'accelerate wildldy.'
But you really shouldn't be using cruise control on hills anyhow.
Any car will 'accelerate wildly' under cruise control, given the right conditions, i.e. you are going up a hill and it can't maintain speed in the current gear. Here's what you do: manually put the thing into a lower gear before it loses speed. Problem solved.
The pie is not fixed in size
Good point. However, it is also not an infinite pie. Mmmm, infinite pie...
While it's true that many richer nations are not breeding at replacement rate, they all have net population growth due to immigration. We aren't in any danger of your doomsday 'a half dozen four year olds supporting a billion ninety year olds,' scenario any time soon.
So, thanks for the warning, but I still think we need to do a better job of providing more birth control to developing nations, which is what markdavis was saying. Despite having a variably sized pie, more poor, uneducated people won't create more wealth.
I don't think anyone is claiming we need to tell Italy they should be using more birth control, do you?
Another non-viable approach: an ever growing population of any sort, in an environment of limited resources.
You know what else wouldn't be viable? A population of old people supported by NINJA-PANDAS!!!
What does your comment have to do with markdavis's comment? He never said, 'we need to reduce the population through birth control' which is what you seem to be implying. As long as people have a little over a kid apiece on average, there's no problem. People die at every age, and so with replacement rate breeding, there will still be more young people than old people.
Besides, with more old people, there will be more old-people medicine for robots to use as fuel. The robots can support the old people, because they're made of metal, and robots are strong.
Here is some information on the recent incredible rise in filibusters:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/11/25/the-staggering-rise-of-the-filibuster.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/01/25/how-the-filibuster-changed-and-brought-tyranny-of-the-minority.html
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1933802,00.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016901.php
This is NOT business as usual. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. The Democrats are more than willing to debate, but what the Republicans are doing is not debate. The voters are desperate for change, though, and the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.
Thankfully, Obama is spearheading a reform of the filibuster. Hopefully, the Democrats will force the Republicans to play their filibuster card over and over again, to demonstrate to the people that the Republican party is the party of NO. That is the answer the Republicans are providing to this country's problems: don't let the Democrats 'score points' by doing anything useful.
However, the Republicans will find that people do not look kindly on people who, though they have no answers or plans of their own, nonetheless obstruct anyone who does.
The FSF likes choice just fine. However, part of choosing is making an informed choice. And the FSF is pointing out that perhaps the iPad is not the best choice. Why are you against the FSF making legitimate complaints? Why are you against them publicizing the issue of DRM? No one is forcing anyone not to buy something. They are merely making recommendations. It almost seems as though you want consumers to make uninformed choices, rather than thinking things through and investigating their purchases. You DO want consumers making informed choices, right?
As we have seen, the Apple store does not guarantee safety. But if consumers like being locked into one provider, they can now make that choice. If this weren't publicized by the FSF, how would all those consumers who want to be locked into one provider even know that Apple was making that possible? The FSF is doing those consumers and Apple a favor, pointing out what a great thing Apple is doing for them.
I'm honestly curious. I'm a sysadmin at a state agency. You know what that is, right? I'm not an officer, I wasn't elected. I'm not the head of the department, nor did I claim to be. I'm just a sysadmin of a very large department.
Why did you think my number would be listed? If you aren't actually IN CYFD, there's no way you could even find it. I'm not the help desk.
Personally, I think you've got a buddy in New Mexico and had him forward an NM number to your number. Besides being fraud, that's an awful lot of work just to try to show somebody up on the Internet.
All kidding and bantering aside, you should seek professional help.