Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia...
You bet your ass I do. You think the US government is corrupted by corporate interests? What do you think would happen if you removed most transparency measures from the US government, crippled the "checks and balances" on power, handcuffed the media, gave most of the money in the country to even bigger criminals than it already belongs to, and left things like that for about 20 years? Yeah, that's what Russia is today.
You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions about the way the brain works... Do you really think the generalization/pattern recognition abilities of the brain function by analyzing large amounts of detailed, memorized information? That's not how it works at all...
Understanding how changes in the way people manage information affect various cognitive abilities is certainly an important research problem. But unless you happen to be a cognitive psychologist/neurologist, your extremely vague intuition on the matter (based presumably on nothing more than your personal conservative prejudices regarding technology, which seem paradoxically common among the/. crowd) is, in my opinion, "noise disguised as signal" (i.e. not useful, and damaging due to seeming potentially informed).
PLEASE help them win this counterclaim! Seriously dude, I know you like a hands-off approach to parenting, but in this case we could really use your help...
The problem is, you can't always predict what the correct refinements are to keep what is relevant and discard what isn't. In the 'wine' example that doesn't seem difficult, but in general that is not always possible, since 1) web pages don't always contain all information (read: words) that pertain to all the contexts they belong to, and 2) the user doesn't always know the words that accurately differentiate the context they're interested in from all others.
True, but the more important thing, I think, is that over the years I have often (but not always) discovered that opposing ideas I find on Slashdot have some merit behind them.
That's not true, I've heard from a friend that his astrologist consulted Nostradamus' writings and found predictions that Fox News would do a special report in 2013 proving that dissenting comments on slashdot tend to be of very poor quality.
That is possible in some cases, but in general you would need information about all the possible ways of interpreting your current query, and refining it in a way that downweights the incorrect interpretations while making sure all the results pertaining to the correct interpretation remain unaffected. In general that requires complete knowledge of the web database Google has on its servers. At the end you have each user running a "local copy" of Google's search algorithms. Sure, I'm exaggerating a little bit; but if I want the same quality in my search results as I am currently getting from Google while using the "dumb" search engine you seem to want, I would indeed have to resort do running Google locally.
You couldn't be more wrong -- when I search for MSE, I'm looking for things about the "mean squared error". When a photographer does the same, he's probably looking for results about "Matthews Studio Equipment". What you say would be true if language didn't depend on context. What you say is horribly wrong because language (or at least phrases the length of the typical search query) often depends more on context than on specific words.
There's a tendency by liberals to identify some trait that negatively affects quality of life as something to celebrate. After all, the world must be fair and someone screwed over must not suffer for it, right?
It's not just/. that has a hard-on for it. In the entire computer science community, this problem is probably almost universally recognized as the most important open question in CS theory. Actually, the problem is considered extremely important not just in CS, but in all of mathematics: for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems .
On the other hand, the motivation of any business is always just one thing -- money. Whatever data about you they get their hands on, they will use to make their products/services more attractive to you, to advertise better to you, etc., but at the end of the day it's all about getting you to give them your money. With government, it's different. Governments are big, they contain lots of people with lots of different motivations. They contain power-hungry tyrants-to-be, they contain religious and other faith-based lunatics, etc. The 4th amendment may have worked OK most of the time, but we've seen it fail too. And when it fails, things happen that make targeted advertising with improperly acquired personal data sound like a joke.
TL;DR: government is always more scary than business.
Researchers across universities have only just started to realize just how much information can be inferred on an individual just by looking at their connections, or "friends." Even if you post nothing on FB, just populating your friends list is enough to give away a general overview of who you are.
That was clearly meant for illustrative purposes; the complete statement would have been "if you knew the precise radius of a circular object approximately the size of the Milky Way galaxy, then a value of Pi to 40 digits would be more than enough to compute its circumference to an error less than the size of a proton." It was left up to the reader to infer the precise meaning of the shortened statement. Apparently you failed to do so, either due to lack of ability, or because you had adversarial intentions (e.g. wanted to demonstrate your intelligence by finding an error in the article, however inconsequential to the main issue at hand).
Apparently in America (and I'm assuming you're American), people no longer believe that it is possible to be annoyed by something, without requiring that it be made illegal. That's why you will fall.
Look, I'm all for religious freedom and such, but I'm getting sick of this kind of bullshit. To be clear, I don't think FB did anything wrong here -- they're a business, and they listened to the wishes of their users (didn't say customers, 'cause their customers are the advertisers they sell your personal data to). What I'm sick of is seeing some people fighting and dying for freedom in one part of the world (lookin' at you, Egypt), and others digging themselves deeper into outdated, bullshit traditions and rules, and clinging to them because of propaganda from religious figures and tyrants that has them convinced that it makes them somehow superior or happier.
You shouldn't talk if you have nothing useful/correct to say. The "scientific method" that so many half-educated people such as yourself think is some kind of absolute, divinely inspired commandment, is in reality merely a guideline. Even if it is adhered to precisely, it doesn't mean that each paper that is published needs to contain the entire cycle of the "scientific method" in it. The cycle can take several papers, or in some cases many years, to complete itself. It is not that rare to see a new idea proposed with very little empirical justification, followed by years of research that try to confirm or deny that idea, possibly with occasional relaxations/limitations/corrections. There is no reason why a single paper must contain a 95% confidence level hypothesis test confirming every hypothesis proposed in it.
My point is, you have no idea how science works, you don't know the first thing about statistics, your post is nothing but bullshit based on a few popular science shows you've seen or articles you've read, you're so full of yourself that it doesn't even occur to you that your flimsy, misguided notions might be anything but the ideal truth, and the best thing you can do for the good of mankind as a whole is to never say anything again, unless you are asked a specific question, in which case you should answer as concisely as possible, and shut up as soon as you're done.
Slashdot Mirror
I lol'd. This is probably what would happen.
Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia...
You bet your ass I do. You think the US government is corrupted by corporate interests? What do you think would happen if you removed most transparency measures from the US government, crippled the "checks and balances" on power, handcuffed the media, gave most of the money in the country to even bigger criminals than it already belongs to, and left things like that for about 20 years? Yeah, that's what Russia is today.
I don't think the loans are the main problem here, it's the blatant conflicts of interest. That doesn't have you the least bit worried?
You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions about the way the brain works... Do you really think the generalization/pattern recognition abilities of the brain function by analyzing large amounts of detailed, memorized information? That's not how it works at all... Understanding how changes in the way people manage information affect various cognitive abilities is certainly an important research problem. But unless you happen to be a cognitive psychologist/neurologist, your extremely vague intuition on the matter (based presumably on nothing more than your personal conservative prejudices regarding technology, which seem paradoxically common among the /. crowd) is, in my opinion, "noise disguised as signal" (i.e. not useful, and damaging due to seeming potentially informed).
Get it, "no charge"! Sorry...
the clusterfuck continues. US economic history in three words -- manufacturing, service, litigation.
PLEASE help them win this counterclaim! Seriously dude, I know you like a hands-off approach to parenting, but in this case we could really use your help...
The problem is, you can't always predict what the correct refinements are to keep what is relevant and discard what isn't. In the 'wine' example that doesn't seem difficult, but in general that is not always possible, since 1) web pages don't always contain all information (read: words) that pertain to all the contexts they belong to, and 2) the user doesn't always know the words that accurately differentiate the context they're interested in from all others.
True, but the more important thing, I think, is that over the years I have often (but not always) discovered that opposing ideas I find on Slashdot have some merit behind them.
That's not true, I've heard from a friend that his astrologist consulted Nostradamus' writings and found predictions that Fox News would do a special report in 2013 proving that dissenting comments on slashdot tend to be of very poor quality.
That is possible in some cases, but in general you would need information about all the possible ways of interpreting your current query, and refining it in a way that downweights the incorrect interpretations while making sure all the results pertaining to the correct interpretation remain unaffected. In general that requires complete knowledge of the web database Google has on its servers. At the end you have each user running a "local copy" of Google's search algorithms. Sure, I'm exaggerating a little bit; but if I want the same quality in my search results as I am currently getting from Google while using the "dumb" search engine you seem to want, I would indeed have to resort do running Google locally.
You couldn't be more wrong -- when I search for MSE, I'm looking for things about the "mean squared error". When a photographer does the same, he's probably looking for results about "Matthews Studio Equipment". What you say would be true if language didn't depend on context. What you say is horribly wrong because language (or at least phrases the length of the typical search query) often depends more on context than on specific words.
There's a tendency by liberals to identify some trait that negatively affects quality of life as something to celebrate. After all, the world must be fair and someone screwed over must not suffer for it, right?
FTFY.
Disclaimer: I consider myself socially liberal.
It's not just /. that has a hard-on for it. In the entire computer science community, this problem is probably almost universally recognized as the most important open question in CS theory. Actually, the problem is considered extremely important not just in CS, but in all of mathematics: for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems .
Wow, that's a level of stupid I haven't even seen on 4chan in a while...
Well, it kind of is the only city in NC, and I say this as someone who lived in the triangle area for 4 years...
On the other hand, the motivation of any business is always just one thing -- money. Whatever data about you they get their hands on, they will use to make their products/services more attractive to you, to advertise better to you, etc., but at the end of the day it's all about getting you to give them your money. With government, it's different. Governments are big, they contain lots of people with lots of different motivations. They contain power-hungry tyrants-to-be, they contain religious and other faith-based lunatics, etc. The 4th amendment may have worked OK most of the time, but we've seen it fail too. And when it fails, things happen that make targeted advertising with improperly acquired personal data sound like a joke.
TL;DR: government is always more scary than business.
Researchers across universities have only just started to realize just how much information can be inferred on an individual just by looking at their connections, or "friends." Even if you post nothing on FB, just populating your friends list is enough to give away a general overview of who you are.
Who said it was a choice? My understanding is that they were told to bring him in alive if possible.
That was clearly meant for illustrative purposes; the complete statement would have been "if you knew the precise radius of a circular object approximately the size of the Milky Way galaxy, then a value of Pi to 40 digits would be more than enough to compute its circumference to an error less than the size of a proton." It was left up to the reader to infer the precise meaning of the shortened statement. Apparently you failed to do so, either due to lack of ability, or because you had adversarial intentions (e.g. wanted to demonstrate your intelligence by finding an error in the article, however inconsequential to the main issue at hand).
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1993986&cid=35200466 . read that if you want a reply.
Apparently in America (and I'm assuming you're American), people no longer believe that it is possible to be annoyed by something, without requiring that it be made illegal. That's why you will fall.
Your sig says otherwise.
I disagree.
Look, I'm all for religious freedom and such, but I'm getting sick of this kind of bullshit. To be clear, I don't think FB did anything wrong here -- they're a business, and they listened to the wishes of their users (didn't say customers, 'cause their customers are the advertisers they sell your personal data to). What I'm sick of is seeing some people fighting and dying for freedom in one part of the world (lookin' at you, Egypt), and others digging themselves deeper into outdated, bullshit traditions and rules, and clinging to them because of propaganda from religious figures and tyrants that has them convinced that it makes them somehow superior or happier.
TL;DR: My sig is relevant as ever.
You shouldn't talk if you have nothing useful/correct to say. The "scientific method" that so many half-educated people such as yourself think is some kind of absolute, divinely inspired commandment, is in reality merely a guideline. Even if it is adhered to precisely, it doesn't mean that each paper that is published needs to contain the entire cycle of the "scientific method" in it. The cycle can take several papers, or in some cases many years, to complete itself. It is not that rare to see a new idea proposed with very little empirical justification, followed by years of research that try to confirm or deny that idea, possibly with occasional relaxations/limitations/corrections. There is no reason why a single paper must contain a 95% confidence level hypothesis test confirming every hypothesis proposed in it.
My point is, you have no idea how science works, you don't know the first thing about statistics, your post is nothing but bullshit based on a few popular science shows you've seen or articles you've read, you're so full of yourself that it doesn't even occur to you that your flimsy, misguided notions might be anything but the ideal truth, and the best thing you can do for the good of mankind as a whole is to never say anything again, unless you are asked a specific question, in which case you should answer as concisely as possible, and shut up as soon as you're done.
They don't need charged daily.
Pittsburghese FTW!