At what point should we have stopped Philosophical "wankery"?
Hmmm. Probably after that whole scientific method got going. The empirical beats the snot out of philosophical wankery.
Study into the field of ethics is usually either boring and obvious, eg "murder is bad", or or really really scary, eg "murder isn't that bad".
Wouldn't the study of high level logic just be mathematics?
And its philosophical wankery that can actually give ideas in which direction to test consciousness.
Which frankly...is still a pretty big mystery.
Well that's true, but I think it's far more probable to get insight into that mystery with neuroscience, chemistry, and brain surgery. They have that whole "empirical" thing going for them.
And if you think, even for a moment, that there's some sort of mind-body dualism and studying the brain is a waste of time or is off-target, then kindly GTFO.
First off, nobody cares about your philosophy major or your drug trip or whatever it is that lead you to such sophomoric philosophical conundrums.
Secondly, philosophy is mostly useless, solipsism and fatalism doubly so. What's the point? How does effort into either one of these topics benefit anyone?
Third, your logic fails. And it fails HARD. I have to prove something or accept that the alternative is true? Huh?
No, it's more like "prove all this is reality or accept that it CAN BE an illusion. You know, like, it's possible. Man.
As far as that goes, sure, all this really could be a fantastic simulation. So? Does that change a god-damned thing?
And uh, do you get that even if it is a simulated reality, free-will is still possible. Indeed, I'd say that would probably be the point of it all. Cause that's what I'd study if I had god's own reality simulator.
A 6 year old is happy to be there because there is cake. He don't know any better.
A 16 year old is anxious to get on with their own life. He knows everything.
A 26 year old is happy to get some insight. He knows he doesn't know shit.
Wooo sweeping generalizations! But 16 to 26 is a huge jump and a lot changes in that time frame.
Sure, but the people that get their job due to their firm handshake, networking, and interpersonal skills are salesmen. It's kind of a travesty when an engineering job goes to a salesman. Now, everyone needs that set of skills to some extent, the same way that everyone needs to be able to read, write, and do basic math. But when the hiring process rates the skin-deep social shmoozing skills above the ability to do the job, then you get shitty teams of sycophants and incompetence.
There's a balancing act, but one is clearing more important then the other.
but if the Senate signs on it is over for Network Neutrality
Hi,
Welcome to American politics, the two-party system dominates most everything that happens in congress. This has gotten worse as of late.
Currently the republicans control the house, they're the ones who voted for this.
Currently the democrats control the senate, they're not going to vote for this.
The republicans know it, the democrats know it, we know it. But I understand the importance of voting for things that you know won't pass.
Because the Executive Branch can't make laws
Man, wouldn't that have been great if Bush had known that? It's like the FISA laws wouldn't have been trampled.
The rule of law is a good thing. Unfortunately, it looks like the law is what those with enough clout say it is.
Face it, net neutrality is a pipe dream for those who are technically competent enough to understand but are far outnumbered by the voters who don't understand it
Do YOU understand that the Internet currently works on a principle of a neutral network and what's being argued over is network neutrality REGULATION?
NN is not a pipedream. It's the de facto standard that makes the foundation of the Internet. Since there's been major consolidation in the ISP industry it may be a good idea to enforce NN if the consumers don't have enough power to direct the market themselves. But anyone who says network neutrality is a bad thing isn't knowledgeable on the issue, or has succumb to the spin that telcom lobbyist have spread.
Yeah, I hear where he's coming from, but talking with my dad about old time makes me realize how much he shielded me from the majority of it.
So the whole "back in my day" meme is rose-tinted for a reason.
"You trust your kid to discern fact from fiction!? CALL CHILD SERVICES!"
Come on, man. He saying that you need to teach kids that fiction is fiction rather then keep them from fiction. It's not that crazy.
That said, a nine year old watching Family Guy? ehhhhhhh.
Yeah, this may be like all those gay republicans; the strongest voice against an topic has an odd tendency to be a hypocritical one. Of course, if anyone has it coming, it's the NAZIs.
But everyone knows that China pushes hard for publication, and you either publish or perish. Well, the same can be said for here, but it's significantly more dire in China. So everyone knows that while China publishes a lot of research papers, most of them are crap.
Ah, that's it. I was having a hard time figuring out how someone could even hold this kind of thought in their head. He's only looking at this from his perspective. Well, not entirely, I guess he's thinking about his girlfriend's perspective. He fails to place himself in their wheelchairs and look at it from their perspective. Isn't that kind of psychopathic behavior?
How the hell did this get to +5 insightful? Are we all psychopaths?
If you think that's terrifying, think about being trapped in your body without being able itch, wipe, or feed yourself.
Yeah, it's probably not the most comfortable, but it's a step up. Kinda like giving a lame person the ability to run again, but only in high heels. You work with what you've got.
Remember that these are people who can't sit up without help we're talking about. Twitter is not one of their priorities, from what I can tell.
I think you're missing the point. They can't sit up without help, but with this interface, they can use a computer without help. Painfully slow, sure, but hey, I think they have some time on their hands. I mean, they're not going anywhere.
They still need help in the real world, but I think they'd still use it quite a bit in between rousing games of stare-at-paint and yell-at-nurse.
Damn straight you don't understand it.
Mr Banker can make 5% on his pile of money if he sits on it. OR, you say, he can lend out his money at a NEGATIVE interest rate, and make 2%.
Now just sit there and think about what you did.
ok, first off, I'm not one of those "funny anti-GMO guys". If we can make things better, good for us.
Second, Monsanto really is as evil, anti-competitive, bullying, lying, and typicalCorporate as the hippies think they are. They do a lot of business, help people make a buck, and make progress in technical fields, which are all good things. But that doesn't magically offset their corporate culture.
To act as if Monsanto and genetic engineering are synonymous is just ignorance and laziness.
That was... actually kind of the point of my post.
Try not to take this the wrong way, but you're kinda coming off as an asshole. I know the organic hippies are kind of annoying, but "stiff upper lip", "rise above it", and all that crap. If you see something wrong, point it out and source it. If you get emotional and lay into them, then you're no better then they are.
And lastly, you have to admit that there are issues with genetically modified organisms. Issues that we will overcome, and in theory ARE overcoming. There is a rick of a monoculture. There's a risk of complicated intellectual property rights. There's a risk of unintended consequences of introducing new organisms into the field. Hell, that's was a risk well before we knew what DNA was.
Also:
how farmers aren't stupid and wouldn't do something if it didn't benefit them
Because nobody has ever done anything that has short term rewards but long term consequences, and since everyone is perfectly rational and perfectly informed, the world is free of conflict and strife. Yes, the world is wonderful like that.
Following your link felt like opening a lovecraftian tome. I think if I stayed too long I'd be devoured by Cthulhu. If I was ever called on to make decisions along these lines I think I'd sacrifice a goat and start dancing around fires.
And you're right, "distribution" was far too generic and vague. My apologies.
#1) Google caved to Verison in an effort to break the logjam that is stopping network neutrality legislation. Yeah, I'm not happy they're willing to compromise over something so important. But I'm not seeing how spotlighting network neutrality breakage helps Google with some ulterior motive. It'll probably help them put Verizon over a barrel and force them to accept NN.
#2) Nifty. Got anything juicy to put in the comparator? Cause aside from some sites being re-ordered and some ads being different, I'm not seeing how letting people detect throttling is at odds with taking into account regional differences.
#3) Ah yes, Google's cash cow, that whole "Search" thing that they do. I hear it's kind of important to them. Like a proprietary secret of sorts. Alright, alright, the world be more knowledgeable and probably better off in the long run if this was public, open and free. But as far as corporations go, not giving away their main product is hardly evil. And it still has nothing to do with throttling detection.
Here's a vital bit of info that'll help you get over your fear of Google: A free and open Internet, where everyone uses it to... do whatever, makes Google money. If everyone used ONLY the services in their ISP's walled garden, or only ever went to facebook, then the Internet is diminished. And Google along with it. It is in Google's financial interests to make the Internet a good place to do things. Because finding stuff on the Internet is still the primary thing they do.
It used to be full of homepages. Personal sites. If you searched for something (and search sucked in those days, trust me), more often then not you found a website that someone had made on their own time and covered whatever subjects they wanted it to. It depended on what you were searching for, but it ran the gamut of important to trivial. From fan-reviews of books, to people raging about how awesome the newest game was. But also important stuff like the effects of the fall of the Berlin wall the the social entanglement the web is posing for Muslim women.
Most of these pages were hosted for free. And I believe that's where I came in. Before the 90's putting something on the web required you to run your own server. Or have access to one in college or something. In the 90's, geocities and all lowered the bar for the internet and hosting was now free, with a small string attached. They technically owned anything you put out there and got what advertising revenue they could slap on the side.
Now a days things have changed. People no longer have their own websites, that's too much work. The bar has been lowered even further. You no longer need to know HTML or even what a tag is. In the web2.0 world, everyone can simply upload what they want onto websites. Facebook, flicker, and all. Those places have done the heavy lifting of making the webpage and all people have to do is insert the content. Web pages that take in people's information, pictures, links, knowledge and all that crap and host it for everyone else to see. When you Google something now, the first result is usually Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is where people upload their knowledge.
But anyway, today's internet is more centralized. If you want to know about a movie, you don't find someone's website with a page dedicated to ranting about the movie, you go to imdb and find facts and reviews uploaded by people. You see someone's rant that was upmodded by other. The one that got downmodded is buried and (if you're feeling old and cynical) the truly insightful one got censored.
This is a slightly fearful consolidation of the web. Whereas there was once an ever-increasing amount of participation on the web, the meaningful web is now a handful of sites dedicated to their particular topic. It's arguably more structured, but it's taking the power from the people and putting it in the hands of the companies that own the sites. It's arguably the natural course for these sorts of things. Something new came along. Everyone competed, and then a few, very few, people won and started to consolidate. Fighting that process is nearly hopeless. But the natural way things work is kinda crappy. It leads to monopolies, and abuse of power.
And so that I'm not just reminiscing: How about making an easy to implement protocol that lets individuals with home-made webpages and servers establish friends and circles of trust. There's no reason that social network need to be run by a company. Distributed networks are simply better in the long run.
There's actually a book about that by Paolo Bacigalupi. Dystopian future where oil has run dry, calories are king, and Monsanto has run amok. (And coal-to-oil is conveniently ignored). You need to use a broad brush for your suspension of disbelief, but it's written pretty well.
Government Official: Hello [industry], the masses are getting pissy so here's a big bag of money so you don't have to charge them as much
[Farmer/HouseBuilder/OilDriller/whatnotIndustrialist]: Awwww, now I'm all un-incentiveised to keep doing what I do. All this extra money just takes the fun out of my job.
OR:
Government Official: Hello [industry], the masses are getting pissy so we're going to give them a buck whenever they buy your goods, (your target market has just doubled in size) OR (the purchasing power of your target market just doubled).
The more I look at people's economic models, the more I think they're all guessing. And it's not just you. Almost every model looks at the issue from one position of the equation. Like, for example: Some people think that workers should grateful to the boss for having a job. They pay your after all, right? On the flip side, the boss should feel grateful to the worker because the worker produces more then his wage, right? And which view is more fundamentally true? In terms of an economic model? NEITHER! So it all comes down to a smorgasbord board of "other factors" from immigration, class-size, unemployment, current quarter profits, CEO bonuses, sociological trends, the price of eggs, mortgage rates, who's president, who's the county recorder, how racist everyone is, how much of a pussy everyone is, who your daddy is, who rich your son is going to be (talk about gambling on futures), to anything and everything under the sun.
But economists don't seem to have the ability to construct a working mathematical model that simulates the economy. I'm not the sort of guy who decries all scientists and intellectuals, I'm just saying that economics is a soft science. Really soft. You're-just-guessing kind of soft.
So, all that rant aside, yeah, dumping relief food into a nation seems to kick the legs out from the local farmers, and the main problem is food distribution, not food production.
Slashdot Mirror
At what point should we have stopped Philosophical "wankery"?
Hmmm. Probably after that whole scientific method got going. The empirical beats the snot out of philosophical wankery.
Study into the field of ethics is usually either boring and obvious, eg "murder is bad", or or really really scary, eg "murder isn't that bad".
Wouldn't the study of high level logic just be mathematics?
And its philosophical wankery that can actually give ideas in which direction to test consciousness. Which frankly...is still a pretty big mystery.
Well that's true, but I think it's far more probable to get insight into that mystery with neuroscience, chemistry, and brain surgery. They have that whole "empirical" thing going for them.
And if you think, even for a moment, that there's some sort of mind-body dualism and studying the brain is a waste of time or is off-target, then kindly GTFO.
My word, you're serious.
First off, nobody cares about your philosophy major or your drug trip or whatever it is that lead you to such sophomoric philosophical conundrums.
Secondly, philosophy is mostly useless, solipsism and fatalism doubly so. What's the point? How does effort into either one of these topics benefit anyone?
Third, your logic fails. And it fails HARD. I have to prove something or accept that the alternative is true? Huh?
No, it's more like "prove all this is reality or accept that it CAN BE an illusion. You know, like, it's possible. Man.
As far as that goes, sure, all this really could be a fantastic simulation. So? Does that change a god-damned thing?
And uh, do you get that even if it is a simulated reality, free-will is still possible. Indeed, I'd say that would probably be the point of it all. Cause that's what I'd study if I had god's own reality simulator.
A 6 year old is happy to be there because there is cake. He don't know any better.
A 16 year old is anxious to get on with their own life. He knows everything.
A 26 year old is happy to get some insight. He knows he doesn't know shit.
Wooo sweeping generalizations! But 16 to 26 is a huge jump and a lot changes in that time frame.
NONSENSE! Now have another bite of long pork and fava beans.
CLEARLY me communications kills work nun to gud.
Sure, but the people that get their job due to their firm handshake, networking, and interpersonal skills are salesmen. It's kind of a travesty when an engineering job goes to a salesman. Now, everyone needs that set of skills to some extent, the same way that everyone needs to be able to read, write, and do basic math. But when the hiring process rates the skin-deep social shmoozing skills above the ability to do the job, then you get shitty teams of sycophants and incompetence.
There's a balancing act, but one is clearing more important then the other.
but if the Senate signs on it is over for Network Neutrality
Hi,
Welcome to American politics, the two-party system dominates most everything that happens in congress. This has gotten worse as of late.
Currently the republicans control the house, they're the ones who voted for this.
Currently the democrats control the senate, they're not going to vote for this.
The republicans know it, the democrats know it, we know it. But I understand the importance of voting for things that you know won't pass.
Because the Executive Branch can't make laws
Man, wouldn't that have been great if Bush had known that? It's like the FISA laws wouldn't have been trampled.
The rule of law is a good thing. Unfortunately, it looks like the law is what those with enough clout say it is.
Perhaps "quirky" is a euphemism for the flatulent racist politically outspoken guy.
Face it, net neutrality is a pipe dream for those who are technically competent enough to understand but are far outnumbered by the voters who don't understand it
Do YOU understand that the Internet currently works on a principle of a neutral network and what's being argued over is network neutrality REGULATION?
NN is not a pipedream. It's the de facto standard that makes the foundation of the Internet. Since there's been major consolidation in the ISP industry it may be a good idea to enforce NN if the consumers don't have enough power to direct the market themselves. But anyone who says network neutrality is a bad thing isn't knowledgeable on the issue, or has succumb to the spin that telcom lobbyist have spread.
Yeah, I hear where he's coming from, but talking with my dad about old time makes me realize how much he shielded me from the majority of it.
So the whole "back in my day" meme is rose-tinted for a reason.
"You trust your kid to discern fact from fiction!? CALL CHILD SERVICES!"
Come on, man. He saying that you need to teach kids that fiction is fiction rather then keep them from fiction. It's not that crazy.
That said, a nine year old watching Family Guy? ehhhhhhh.
Yeah, this may be like all those gay republicans; the strongest voice against an topic has an odd tendency to be a hypocritical one. Of course, if anyone has it coming, it's the NAZIs.
Yeah, no kidding.
"Trucker reconstructs A-bomb"
HOLY SHIT! SEND IN THE FUCKING SWAT WITH DOGS AND GUNS THAT SHOOT SWAT DOGS!
"Trucker teaches himself HOW to construct an A-Bomb"
Oh, pft, doesn't everyone know this?
But everyone knows that China pushes hard for publication, and you either publish or perish. Well, the same can be said for here, but it's significantly more dire in China. So everyone knows that while China publishes a lot of research papers, most of them are crap.
Your metric, crap it is.
Ah, that's it. I was having a hard time figuring out how someone could even hold this kind of thought in their head. He's only looking at this from his perspective. Well, not entirely, I guess he's thinking about his girlfriend's perspective. He fails to place himself in their wheelchairs and look at it from their perspective. Isn't that kind of psychopathic behavior?
How the hell did this get to +5 insightful? Are we all psychopaths?
If you think that's terrifying, think about being trapped in your body without being able itch, wipe, or feed yourself.
Yeah, it's probably not the most comfortable, but it's a step up. Kinda like giving a lame person the ability to run again, but only in high heels. You work with what you've got.
Remember that these are people who can't sit up without help we're talking about. Twitter is not one of their priorities, from what I can tell.
I think you're missing the point. They can't sit up without help, but with this interface, they can use a computer without help. Painfully slow, sure, but hey, I think they have some time on their hands. I mean, they're not going anywhere.
They still need help in the real world, but I think they'd still use it quite a bit in between rousing games of stare-at-paint and yell-at-nurse.
Yeah, but you have to remember that he'll probably be out on parole in a year or two.
Damn straight you don't understand it.
Mr Banker can make 5% on his pile of money if he sits on it. OR, you say, he can lend out his money at a NEGATIVE interest rate, and make 2%.
Now just sit there and think about what you did.
Second, Monsanto really is as evil, anti-competitive, bullying, lying, and typicalCorporate as the hippies think they are. They do a lot of business, help people make a buck, and make progress in technical fields, which are all good things. But that doesn't magically offset their corporate culture.
To act as if Monsanto and genetic engineering are synonymous is just ignorance and laziness.
That was... actually kind of the point of my post.
Try not to take this the wrong way, but you're kinda coming off as an asshole. I know the organic hippies are kind of annoying, but "stiff upper lip", "rise above it", and all that crap. If you see something wrong, point it out and source it. If you get emotional and lay into them, then you're no better then they are.
And lastly, you have to admit that there are issues with genetically modified organisms. Issues that we will overcome, and in theory ARE overcoming. There is a rick of a monoculture. There's a risk of complicated intellectual property rights. There's a risk of unintended consequences of introducing new organisms into the field. Hell, that's was a risk well before we knew what DNA was. Also:
how farmers aren't stupid and wouldn't do something if it didn't benefit them
Because nobody has ever done anything that has short term rewards but long term consequences, and since everyone is perfectly rational and perfectly informed, the world is free of conflict and strife. Yes, the world is wonderful like that.
Following your link felt like opening a lovecraftian tome. I think if I stayed too long I'd be devoured by Cthulhu. If I was ever called on to make decisions along these lines I think I'd sacrifice a goat and start dancing around fires.
And you're right, "distribution" was far too generic and vague. My apologies.
#1) Google caved to Verison in an effort to break the logjam that is stopping network neutrality legislation. Yeah, I'm not happy they're willing to compromise over something so important. But I'm not seeing how spotlighting network neutrality breakage helps Google with some ulterior motive. It'll probably help them put Verizon over a barrel and force them to accept NN.
#2) Nifty. Got anything juicy to put in the comparator? Cause aside from some sites being re-ordered and some ads being different, I'm not seeing how letting people detect throttling is at odds with taking into account regional differences.
#3) Ah yes, Google's cash cow, that whole "Search" thing that they do. I hear it's kind of important to them. Like a proprietary secret of sorts. Alright, alright, the world be more knowledgeable and probably better off in the long run if this was public, open and free. But as far as corporations go, not giving away their main product is hardly evil. And it still has nothing to do with throttling detection.
Here's a vital bit of info that'll help you get over your fear of Google: A free and open Internet, where everyone uses it to... do whatever, makes Google money. If everyone used ONLY the services in their ISP's walled garden, or only ever went to facebook, then the Internet is diminished. And Google along with it. It is in Google's financial interests to make the Internet a good place to do things. Because finding stuff on the Internet is still the primary thing they do.
Yeah, the web has changed in my day.
It used to be full of homepages. Personal sites. If you searched for something (and search sucked in those days, trust me), more often then not you found a website that someone had made on their own time and covered whatever subjects they wanted it to. It depended on what you were searching for, but it ran the gamut of important to trivial. From fan-reviews of books, to people raging about how awesome the newest game was. But also important stuff like the effects of the fall of the Berlin wall the the social entanglement the web is posing for Muslim women.
Most of these pages were hosted for free. And I believe that's where I came in. Before the 90's putting something on the web required you to run your own server. Or have access to one in college or something. In the 90's, geocities and all lowered the bar for the internet and hosting was now free, with a small string attached. They technically owned anything you put out there and got what advertising revenue they could slap on the side.
Now a days things have changed. People no longer have their own websites, that's too much work. The bar has been lowered even further. You no longer need to know HTML or even what a tag is. In the web2.0 world, everyone can simply upload what they want onto websites. Facebook, flicker, and all. Those places have done the heavy lifting of making the webpage and all people have to do is insert the content. Web pages that take in people's information, pictures, links, knowledge and all that crap and host it for everyone else to see. When you Google something now, the first result is usually Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is where people upload their knowledge.
But anyway, today's internet is more centralized. If you want to know about a movie, you don't find someone's website with a page dedicated to ranting about the movie, you go to imdb and find facts and reviews uploaded by people. You see someone's rant that was upmodded by other. The one that got downmodded is buried and (if you're feeling old and cynical) the truly insightful one got censored.
This is a slightly fearful consolidation of the web. Whereas there was once an ever-increasing amount of participation on the web, the meaningful web is now a handful of sites dedicated to their particular topic. It's arguably more structured, but it's taking the power from the people and putting it in the hands of the companies that own the sites. It's arguably the natural course for these sorts of things. Something new came along. Everyone competed, and then a few, very few, people won and started to consolidate. Fighting that process is nearly hopeless. But the natural way things work is kinda crappy. It leads to monopolies, and abuse of power.
And so that I'm not just reminiscing: How about making an easy to implement protocol that lets individuals with home-made webpages and servers establish friends and circles of trust. There's no reason that social network need to be run by a company. Distributed networks are simply better in the long run.
There's actually a book about that by Paolo Bacigalupi. Dystopian future where oil has run dry, calories are king, and Monsanto has run amok. (And coal-to-oil is conveniently ignored). You need to use a broad brush for your suspension of disbelief, but it's written pretty well.
Government Official: Hello [industry], the masses are getting pissy so here's a big bag of money so you don't have to charge them as much
[Farmer/HouseBuilder/OilDriller/whatnotIndustrialist]: Awwww, now I'm all un-incentiveised to keep doing what I do. All this extra money just takes the fun out of my job.
OR: Government Official: Hello [industry], the masses are getting pissy so we're going to give them a buck whenever they buy your goods, (your target market has just doubled in size) OR (the purchasing power of your target market just doubled).
The more I look at people's economic models, the more I think they're all guessing. And it's not just you. Almost every model looks at the issue from one position of the equation. Like, for example: Some people think that workers should grateful to the boss for having a job. They pay your after all, right? On the flip side, the boss should feel grateful to the worker because the worker produces more then his wage, right? And which view is more fundamentally true? In terms of an economic model? NEITHER! So it all comes down to a smorgasbord board of "other factors" from immigration, class-size, unemployment, current quarter profits, CEO bonuses, sociological trends, the price of eggs, mortgage rates, who's president, who's the county recorder, how racist everyone is, how much of a pussy everyone is, who your daddy is, who rich your son is going to be (talk about gambling on futures), to anything and everything under the sun.
But economists don't seem to have the ability to construct a working mathematical model that simulates the economy. I'm not the sort of guy who decries all scientists and intellectuals, I'm just saying that economics is a soft science. Really soft. You're-just-guessing kind of soft.
So, all that rant aside, yeah, dumping relief food into a nation seems to kick the legs out from the local farmers, and the main problem is food distribution, not food production.