It *can* be superstition. It all depends on why you believe as you do.
OTOH, game theory can show that in some circumstances being good is a benefit, where as in others it's a detriment. But figuring out whether to be good or evil in a circumstance is a sure path to failure unless either time is no consideration, or you've pre-calculated the environment.
Generally in a social setting people who do good, do well. In many zero-sum situations, however, this isn't true.
Now as to superstition: Superstition seems to be equivalent to learning thing based on "After this therefore because of this.", though it can be a "social maxims" kind of thing, also. E.g., most people who believe in rabbits feet do so because of the social maxim, but most superstitions don't fall into that category. Most are post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. OTOH, "nice guys finish last" seems to be a social maxim kind of belief. Few people can point to someone and say "See, he was a nice guy, and that's why he finished last".
But there are caveats, e.g.: When teams are competing, it's probably true that the team that believe "nice guys finish last" when interpreted to mean "don't be nice to the guys on the other team", is more likely to win. But if it's applied within the team, the team will be likely to do poorly.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. There's no logical reason for wanting ANYTHING, not even to breathe. Wants derive from other thought processes than logic. One might call them the axioms off of the the logic springs.
Actually, I've got a fairly detailed theory about this, that I'm sure you don't want the details of, but I break thinking down into four categories: 1) axioms 2) logic 3) models 4) ranking tables Of these, axioms is the worst fitting name. it corresponds to the mental function that CGJung called Intuition, though I disagree with him considerably about the details of implementation.
FWIW, normally when I'm thinking of these processes I label them in terms of the alchemical elements (1:water, 2:air, 3:earth, 4:fire) to free myself from the natural meanings assigned to the labels I first gave, and yet be a short enough label to think about easily.
P.S.: The correspondence that I use was suggested by one of the traditional mappings used by Tarot cards...but this doesn't change the fact that the mapping is intrinsically arbitrary.
OTOH, analogical reasoning, i.e., pattern matching, is one of the basic mental processes that I haven't been able to fit into my theory. I can tell that it's there, and that it's basic, but I haven't been able to tell how many dimensions it operates in, just that it's at least two dimensional, so grep expressions won't work, and I haven't stumbled across a multi-dimensional regular expression for patterns grammar.
Easy compared to the previous methods, yes. They no longer carefully pound bleach into each piece of tatoo dye. And repeat it where they didn't put in enough bleach, They no longer just slice the skin out.
Yeah, it's easy compared to those methods. This doesn't make it fun, cheap, or safe. (Well, it *is* relatively safe. Probably. It's not likely that it has a reasonable probability of eventually yielding skin cancer. And even if it did it would be safe compared to the earlier methods.)
If you think you might be wanting to remove it, just use skin dyes.
From a strict constitutional argument, I agree. You're right. But why does this kind of argument only win when it supports strong entrenched power? (With a few rare exceptions that are over 40 years old. And even then could be seen as parts of an argument between two entrenched power groups.)
Corporations are clearly not people. The constitution doesn't entitle them to be considered as people. Yet legally they are granted rights superior to those of citizens...except the right to vote. Instead they are given the right to bribe. (Pardon me, that's slightly excessive. That's only true if they follow certain prescribed procedures.)
You're assuming they're being honest. Why do you doubt that they understand what it says? They're pretending it says something it doesn't say because it strengthens their case, and makes it palatable to the ignorant and uncaring.
To say that they are shysters is to defame shysters. To say that they are liars is to defame most liars. They don't give a rat's ass about honesty or truth. They're counting on political pull. This may be enough, because they've got lots of political pull. Any politician running for office would love to have the media owe him a few favors. And many are already deeply in debt to the media. This isn't, directly, ASCAP, but it's the same people who are in control of ASCAP.
I wish I believed you, but they own both of my senators body and soul. If they told my senators to vote to ban the use of the word small, they would. Or to vote that up was down.
These people (ASCAP, MPAA, RIAA, etc.) are vicious parasites on society who should be bankrupted immediately. Actually, I feel they deserve worse, but making that legally possible would probably entail handing even more power to the feds. If the old institution of outlawry were still on the books, I would suggest that for every director and every member of management of those institutions. Possible with a sizable reward for each of them. Say, whatever they asked for in their last baseless copyright infringement lawsuit. Or possibly the one they filed against the person who'd been dead for years. (I should look that up, but it's not significant.) But I don't think "Dead or alive" is appropriate. Just have their heads brought in.
(You may gather that I do not like the organizations. I've been boycotting them for around a decade now.)
This claims to be all for good purposes, but are you now believing the word of a politician? About the actions of his project in the hands of his successors?
Sorry, I find this project scary. I'd say that it was accidental, but then I remember that this is the senator that voted for FISA.
Obama *IS* a big government maniac. Just don't think the opposition is any different in this regard. Their track record is, if anything, worse. And pay no attention to their dialectic and philosophical speeches. Pay attention, instead, to what they vote for and what policies they support.
What it means is that it there for use. Good or bad don't enter into it, it's a capability.
Once you realize that the capability is there, you can make an informed decision. (Personally, I've decided that I'm not buying an Android either. I've already made this decision about many other platforms, but I had been thinking about getting an android.)
It's coming up to time to decide on a new phone. It looks like I'll be going with the cheapest one again rather than buying a fancy one. But there are still a couple of contenders that I haven't ruled out.
If you've cached the TCP addresses of the alternate root servers, then taking down name resolution won't keep you from them. But most haven't.
Do you really think a significant number of people would work on emergency backup channels? That doesn't seem to be the way people usually act. And companies generally seem to cut even standard emergency procedures to the legal limit. That costs money. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the ordinary case.
I didn't say own, I said 0wn. There's a distinct difference in meaning, and in this context it's quite significant.
I've heard of several cases where a backhoe cut Internet connections between sites. To me this sounds like there's some place in the connection where there's only one trunk line.
You do seem more knowledgeable about this than I am. (I'd never heard of BGP routing.) But you might want to think about the difference between logical layers and physical layers a bit. I was talking about physical layers.
It's only preposterous if you believe that his goals and purposes are what he says they are. But remember, he voted for FISA while he was just a candidate.
Yeah, but if you 0wn the root servers, you can take down site resolution. Then only connections between sites known by isp number can communicate.
Also, when the internet went commercial it streamlined away a lot of the expensive duplication that was in the original design. This made the entire system a lot more fragile. You can no longer count on one site having multiple independent links to another site. Often there's only one trunk. Take that down, and there's NO communication.
So, yes, that was the original design. But things have been changed since then.
But it doesn't favor the artists and musicians. If it did, I might almost see it as reasonable. Instead it favors the middlemen.
Actually, I lie. Even if it actually favored the creative people, I still wouldn't see an agreement THAT distorted as just. But it doesn't favor the creative people at all. It favors those who hire lawyers. Specialized lawyers, who charge rates much higher than those of an ordinary lawyer.
To put a more accurate point on it, the current laws favor a subset of people who engage in power games to the disadvantage of those who would rather do something else.
However saying that he never became governor doesn't say he didn't inflict his person in Calif. politics in other ways. (Representative, Senator, etc., to consider only the official roles.)
One thing is sure, they've lost all the moral capital they had left after it was proven that they were systematically underpaying and overcharging the musicians. (No surprise there. Every time they've been audited there's been the same result, and never any serious penalty.)
For the last two decades in conflicts between the pirates and the RIAA, I've considered the pirates to be the more moral party. Stupid and immoral, but less immoral than the RIAA or MPAA, or any of their member companies. It's to the point where I wasn't really surprised when SONY was proven to be selling hidden root-kits. A bit shocked, but not really surprised. (I was shocked that a company that was once such a bastion of technical elegance had fallen so far so quickly. Now I won't buy anything that has their name on it.)
I'd think that would inspire a few people to figure "Hell, I've got nothing left to loose. Might as well kill a few of the bastards."
I could be wrong, but I believe that recent research has shown that some fraction of people figure that if they've been done wrong, they don't care WHAT it costs them to get even. (Mind you, there'd been plenty of historical examples even before the recent academic research, so I found it convincing without checking into the details.)
You could be right. It could just have been used that way. It's nearly a decade since I read the book that's my reference: The Mismeasurement of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, and I could even have the title slightly wrong.
Brown wasn't that bad a governor. He was lots better than Regan or Nixon...which we were also afflicted with. (He did have a simply huge ego, but lots of politicians have that problem. He thought he was a Steve Jobs kind of visionary...but he didn't get the details right.)
OTOH, he's just recently been a truly terrible mayor.
Intelligence as a requirement for voting is a bad idea, because you can't trust the people doing the evaluation, or designing the test. (Long history there. The original IQ test was designed to keep out foreigners who weren't like us.)
This doesn't mean that voting should be limited to intelligent people, it means that no matter how desirable, it's too dangerous to implement. (OTOH, there's so much corruption these days through other channels that it probably doesn't matter.)
You really need to seriously think about your definition, either that, or notice a bit about how people operate in the world. (Or claim that "intelligent entities" is, and probably always will be, a null set.)
That $400,000 is probably closer to $200,000, and it means you're going to need to fight off a simply incredible number of get-rich-quick artists.
Being comfortably well off is extremely desirable. Being quite rich has lots of good points. Winning a huge monetary prize is usually quite destructive. (I'm not sure, though, that $400,000 counts as huge. That's less than the cost of a good house.)
You're talking about the driver upgrade and bug fix, which will be released after 3 months, and which won't be accessible except to owners of the printer. So nobody can see it until after they're already committed.
Reading the article wouldn't help. It was as light on details as the/. summary.
But they aren't talking (currently) about isolated ads being printed. Merely things that include the ads that they choose. ("People weren't bothered"..."I think that's because they're already used to ads".)
If you want to believe that their plans won't go any farther than what they're currently offering, be my guest. But I really doubt that you'd come out ahead, even if they continued to offer coupons for free ink.
Slashdot Mirror
Did it pass the senate with a 2/3 vote? If not, then it can't be a declaration of war.
It *can* be superstition. It all depends on why you believe as you do.
OTOH, game theory can show that in some circumstances being good is a benefit, where as in others it's a detriment. But figuring out whether to be good or evil in a circumstance is a sure path to failure unless either time is no consideration, or you've pre-calculated the environment.
Generally in a social setting people who do good, do well. In many zero-sum situations, however, this isn't true.
Now as to superstition: Superstition seems to be equivalent to learning thing based on "After this therefore because of this.", though it can be a "social maxims" kind of thing, also. E.g., most people who believe in rabbits feet do so because of the social maxim, but most superstitions don't fall into that category. Most are post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. OTOH, "nice guys finish last" seems to be a social maxim kind of belief. Few people can point to someone and say "See, he was a nice guy, and that's why he finished last".
But there are caveats, e.g.: When teams are competing, it's probably true that the team that believe "nice guys finish last" when interpreted to mean "don't be nice to the guys on the other team", is more likely to win. But if it's applied within the team, the team will be likely to do poorly.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. There's no logical reason for wanting ANYTHING, not even to breathe. Wants derive from other thought processes than logic. One might call them the axioms off of the the logic springs.
Actually, I've got a fairly detailed theory about this, that I'm sure you don't want the details of, but I break thinking down into four categories:
1) axioms
2) logic
3) models
4) ranking tables
Of these, axioms is the worst fitting name. it corresponds to the mental function that CGJung called Intuition, though I disagree with him considerably about the details of implementation.
FWIW, normally when I'm thinking of these processes I label them in terms of the alchemical elements (1:water, 2:air, 3:earth, 4:fire) to free myself from the natural meanings assigned to the labels I first gave, and yet be a short enough label to think about easily.
P.S.: The correspondence that I use was suggested by one of the traditional mappings used by Tarot cards...but this doesn't change the fact that the mapping is intrinsically arbitrary.
OTOH, analogical reasoning, i.e., pattern matching, is one of the basic mental processes that I haven't been able to fit into my theory. I can tell that it's there, and that it's basic, but I haven't been able to tell how many dimensions it operates in, just that it's at least two dimensional, so grep expressions won't work, and I haven't stumbled across a multi-dimensional regular expression for patterns grammar.
Easy compared to the previous methods, yes. They no longer carefully pound bleach into each piece of tatoo dye. And repeat it where they didn't put in enough bleach, They no longer just slice the skin out.
Yeah, it's easy compared to those methods. This doesn't make it fun, cheap, or safe. (Well, it *is* relatively safe. Probably. It's not likely that it has a reasonable probability of eventually yielding skin cancer. And even if it did it would be safe compared to the earlier methods.)
If you think you might be wanting to remove it, just use skin dyes.
Perhaps unicode would suffice?
From a strict constitutional argument, I agree. You're right. But why does this kind of argument only win when it supports strong entrenched power? (With a few rare exceptions that are over 40 years old. And even then could be seen as parts of an argument between two entrenched power groups.)
Corporations are clearly not people. The constitution doesn't entitle them to be considered as people. Yet legally they are granted rights superior to those of citizens...except the right to vote. Instead they are given the right to bribe. (Pardon me, that's slightly excessive. That's only true if they follow certain prescribed procedures.)
You're assuming they're being honest. Why do you doubt that they understand what it says? They're pretending it says something it doesn't say because it strengthens their case, and makes it palatable to the ignorant and uncaring.
To say that they are shysters is to defame shysters. To say that they are liars is to defame most liars. They don't give a rat's ass about honesty or truth. They're counting on political pull. This may be enough, because they've got lots of political pull. Any politician running for office would love to have the media owe him a few favors. And many are already deeply in debt to the media. This isn't, directly, ASCAP, but it's the same people who are in control of ASCAP.
I wish I believed you, but they own both of my senators body and soul. If they told my senators to vote to ban the use of the word small, they would. Or to vote that up was down.
These people (ASCAP, MPAA, RIAA, etc.) are vicious parasites on society who should be bankrupted immediately. Actually, I feel they deserve worse, but making that legally possible would probably entail handing even more power to the feds. If the old institution of outlawry were still on the books, I would suggest that for every director and every member of management of those institutions. Possible with a sizable reward for each of them. Say, whatever they asked for in their last baseless copyright infringement lawsuit. Or possibly the one they filed against the person who'd been dead for years. (I should look that up, but it's not significant.) But I don't think "Dead or alive" is appropriate. Just have their heads brought in.
(You may gather that I do not like the organizations. I've been boycotting them for around a decade now.)
What makes you think they'd be wrong?
This claims to be all for good purposes, but are you now believing the word of a politician? About the actions of his project in the hands of his successors?
Sorry, I find this project scary. I'd say that it was accidental, but then I remember that this is the senator that voted for FISA.
Obama *IS* a big government maniac. Just don't think the opposition is any different in this regard. Their track record is, if anything, worse. And pay no attention to their dialectic and philosophical speeches. Pay attention, instead, to what they vote for and what policies they support.
What it means is that it there for use. Good or bad don't enter into it, it's a capability.
Once you realize that the capability is there, you can make an informed decision. (Personally, I've decided that I'm not buying an Android either. I've already made this decision about many other platforms, but I had been thinking about getting an android.)
It's coming up to time to decide on a new phone. It looks like I'll be going with the cheapest one again rather than buying a fancy one. But there are still a couple of contenders that I haven't ruled out.
If you've cached the TCP addresses of the alternate root servers, then taking down name resolution won't keep you from them. But most haven't.
Do you really think a significant number of people would work on emergency backup channels? That doesn't seem to be the way people usually act. And companies generally seem to cut even standard emergency procedures to the legal limit. That costs money. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the ordinary case.
I didn't say own, I said 0wn. There's a distinct difference in meaning, and in this context it's quite significant.
I've heard of several cases where a backhoe cut Internet connections between sites. To me this sounds like there's some place in the connection where there's only one trunk line.
You do seem more knowledgeable about this than I am. (I'd never heard of BGP routing.) But you might want to think about the difference between logical layers and physical layers a bit. I was talking about physical layers.
It's only preposterous if you believe that his goals and purposes are what he says they are. But remember, he voted for FISA while he was just a candidate.
So it's not preposterous, only quite sad.
Yeah, but if you 0wn the root servers, you can take down site resolution. Then only connections between sites known by isp number can communicate.
Also, when the internet went commercial it streamlined away a lot of the expensive duplication that was in the original design. This made the entire system a lot more fragile. You can no longer count on one site having multiple independent links to another site. Often there's only one trunk. Take that down, and there's NO communication.
So, yes, that was the original design. But things have been changed since then.
But it doesn't favor the artists and musicians. If it did, I might almost see it as reasonable. Instead it favors the middlemen.
Actually, I lie. Even if it actually favored the creative people, I still wouldn't see an agreement THAT distorted as just. But it doesn't favor the creative people at all. It favors those who hire lawyers. Specialized lawyers, who charge rates much higher than those of an ordinary lawyer.
To put a more accurate point on it, the current laws favor a subset of people who engage in power games to the disadvantage of those who would rather do something else.
No, we were spared that. But he tried.
However saying that he never became governor doesn't say he didn't inflict his person in Calif. politics in other ways. (Representative, Senator, etc., to consider only the official roles.)
One thing is sure, they've lost all the moral capital they had left after it was proven that they were systematically underpaying and overcharging the musicians. (No surprise there. Every time they've been audited there's been the same result, and never any serious penalty.)
For the last two decades in conflicts between the pirates and the RIAA, I've considered the pirates to be the more moral party. Stupid and immoral, but less immoral than the RIAA or MPAA, or any of their member companies. It's to the point where I wasn't really surprised when SONY was proven to be selling hidden root-kits. A bit shocked, but not really surprised. (I was shocked that a company that was once such a bastion of technical elegance had fallen so far so quickly. Now I won't buy anything that has their name on it.)
I'd think that would inspire a few people to figure "Hell, I've got nothing left to loose. Might as well kill a few of the bastards."
I could be wrong, but I believe that recent research has shown that some fraction of people figure that if they've been done wrong, they don't care WHAT it costs them to get even. (Mind you, there'd been plenty of historical examples even before the recent academic research, so I found it convincing without checking into the details.)
You could be right. It could just have been used that way. It's nearly a decade since I read the book that's my reference: The Mismeasurement of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, and I could even have the title slightly wrong.
Brown wasn't that bad a governor. He was lots better than Regan or Nixon...which we were also afflicted with. (He did have a simply huge ego, but lots of politicians have that problem. He thought he was a Steve Jobs kind of visionary...but he didn't get the details right.)
OTOH, he's just recently been a truly terrible mayor.
Intelligence as a requirement for voting is a bad idea, because you can't trust the people doing the evaluation, or designing the test. (Long history there. The original IQ test was designed to keep out foreigners who weren't like us.)
This doesn't mean that voting should be limited to intelligent people, it means that no matter how desirable, it's too dangerous to implement. (OTOH, there's so much corruption these days through other channels that it probably doesn't matter.)
Well, that lets out people.
You really need to seriously think about your definition, either that, or notice a bit about how people operate in the world. (Or claim that "intelligent entities" is, and probably always will be, a null set.)
You're forgetting taxes.
That $400,000 is probably closer to $200,000, and it means you're going to need to fight off a simply incredible number of get-rich-quick artists.
Being comfortably well off is extremely desirable. Being quite rich has lots of good points. Winning a huge monetary prize is usually quite destructive. (I'm not sure, though, that $400,000 counts as huge. That's less than the cost of a good house.)
You're talking about the driver upgrade and bug fix, which will be released after 3 months, and which won't be accessible except to owners of the printer. So nobody can see it until after they're already committed.
Reading the article wouldn't help. It was as light on details as the /. summary.
But they aren't talking (currently) about isolated ads being printed. Merely things that include the ads that they choose. ("People weren't bothered"..."I think that's because they're already used to ads".)
If you want to believe that their plans won't go any farther than what they're currently offering, be my guest. But I really doubt that you'd come out ahead, even if they continued to offer coupons for free ink.