Malice seems a reasonable assumption, but I think at this point the verdict has to be "not proven". It is, however, a good reason to avoid HP in either case.
There are degrees and degrees. Look up "superstitious conditioning" in a good psychology text. Certainly it's easy to realize that certain identified things are superstitions, but that's just scratching the surface.
It also requires a lot of time and fine attention to detail. Many people are valid experts within a specific range of topics, but pontificate well outside that range. And there are a LOT of topics. Don't trust a chemist on nuclear physics or politics, or a nuclear physicist on chemistry or politics. I'm not sure what you can trust a politician on. They don't always even lie.
I've seen recommendations for water...but always emphasizing care in application. The people who write the instructions have a better idea about their audience. Soap? Are you sure? I don't even recall a recommendation for the use on soap on the case, much less the screen (and it's the screen where the micro-fiber cloths are appropriate).
Still, I only read the summary. Perhaps he was misquoted. But I doubt it. It sounds like the kind of recommendation that marketers often make.
This is not totally clear. In the days of sailing ships it was expected that homosexuality would increase while the ships were at sea, and it has been reported that cabin boys had duties not normally recorded. But nobody ever claimed that when the ships came into port the sailors weren't sexually active with women.
So quite plausibly, when one source of sexual relief is removed, another will be used. If so, then a celibate clergy might well be expected to have non-standard sexual outlets of various kinds.
You need to study history. It will make you a bit cynical about humans, but if you study real history, it will help you understand people (admittedly, only in the abstract).
People don't easily understand certain things, and have certain intuitive "knowledges" that aren't accurate. (Calling them false is wrong, because they are less wrong that certain alternative beliefs.) E.g., people don't understand acceleration. Even people who can correctly calculate it and calculate the result don't understand it. Ask them to predict the result without calculating, and you'll get something more related to a linear result. Now there are lots of subtle tricks that can be used to enable a linear calculation to predict some kinds of acceleration. Baseball fielders are a well studied example. But it's still a linear prediction.
There are many kinds of things that people either do or don't easily believe. One of these is agency. People tend to impute agency to anything that moves against the background in an way that is not intuitively predictable. And they tend to worship power. Worship includes the concept of "unreasonable". This has been very useful over evolutionary time. The unpredicted noise may well be the sign of a predator. Fighting the powerful is dangerous. It does lead to anthropomorphizing, but that can also be useful when you don't have a better explanation. And children don't. And people are reluctant to change their minds.
All of these in combination mean that reasoned though is unusual. During periods when it's quite successful it's valued, but when politics dominates, it lapses.
Study the histories of Greece and Rome (I don't know China well enough, but I think there too). Reasoned discourse was at times well valued, and at other times lapsed. We remember particular decades when there was a "golden age" that generally lasted for around two generations. The rest of the time...well, literature doesn't depend on this, but the arts reflect the rest of society.
So. Currently we have a highly developed science, which is so expertise intensive that nobody understands much more than their own particular branch, with lesser degrees of understanding in related fields, and a tendency to apply the metaphors and methods that work in their area of expertise well beyond their range of validity. So experts are always saying foolish things, and not realizing it, AND ALSO OTHERS CAN'T TELL. How do you tell a real expert in the area in which his is talking about from some inflated ego speaking where he doesn't really understand. This tends to be fertile ground for fake experts, who are really only experts at being con-men. So trust in experts declines. I can't really say "trust in rationality declines" as what those who accept experts (everyone in some field or other) are using isn't actually rationality.
WARNING: I'm not an expert historian. Or Sociologist. Or Psychologist. So don't think of this screed as the proclamation of an expert. Evaluate it against your own experience.
They're special is they're something additional that you need to have. If you wear glasses you probably already need them, and there are other needs.
OTOH, *SOAP*??? You don't want to use something that leaves residue on a screen! Water?? You want to be careful about water around powered on electronics. (Yeah, you can use it, but in tiny amounts, and be careful.) And he's saying this to the public? This idiot doesn't know what he's talking about.
That comment about liquid is one of the reasons I hate e-books.
OTOH, they do have advantages, and I've been thinking of getting a paperback sized phone or tablet to see whether modern screens are more readable. (Besides, more of the stuff I want to read is no available DRM-free. The rest can go stuff itself. It will either be paper or ignored.)
Point taken. But I still don't understand why they went with pseudo-suede rather than pseudo-cork, or even a tough pseudo-sponge (though that might not look as nice).
OTOH, from the comments above, his comments about cleaning are unjustified. Apparently it's usually easy to clean.
You *might* need to remove all servers from the EU, though that isn't clear. Better to try appealing first.
Perhaps you need to ensure you never do business with any country that is in a position to shut you down. Now that Britain is withdrawing from the EU you could put all your servers that handle the EU in Britain and all the servers that handle Britain in the EU. Possibly split into two separate corporations (with initially identical ownership). Etc. Then an EU court would need to get agreement from Britain and conversely. This could still happen, but it would be a major roadblock.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a country in the world that doesn't have people that feel that way in power. Some are more blatant about it than others. And by "in power" I don't necessarily mean the top spot, though I also don't exclude it. The courts in the US have done similar things. So has Britain. I believe I've heard basically similar rulings from every major country that is English speaking, and the one's that don't aren't covered well in the media that I follow.
Black Maid? The Mary Poppins books that I read didn't *have* a black maid. The maid's name *might* have been Sarah, but when she was described it was quite clear that she was caucasian and lower class (as seen by a banker's family).
FWIW I tend to name my counters i, j, k. After that I start to get creative. I trace that naming pattern back to Fortran IV, where that was the recommended pattern, and names could only be six letters long, but it's become a tradition in multiple languages since then. I could find examples in C and Java texts.
The thing is, for a short piece of code a long name is a waste of time. If something's less than around 20 lines long, a fancy name is a waste unless it's doing something external to those 20 lines. (Yay! Block Structures!).
The official definitions sound good. Now, how do they determine those numbers? Population comes from census, and that is known to undercount certain groups. Sometimes drastically. But it's possible to estimate (without known error bars) by how much. Employed persons comes from withholding taxes, etc., and is probably the most accurate number in the batch...though even there there's double counting of some people and missing of others. So there are reasonable ways of estimating the Labor Force Participation Rate, but the error bars aren't obvious. And illegal immigrants wouldn't be properly counted. And there are various other problems with the data, not all pushing in the same direction.
But that's the important number, because that's the one that has a relatively straightforward meaning. Saying that someone is "discouraged from looking for work" isn't helpful. Does that mean they sponge off relatives? Does that mean they do part-time work and are paid under the counter? Does it mean they took up petty theft as a profession? What? Welfare often won't even cover the rent, so there's got to be something, and in a city you can't even really try subsistence farming.
The real problem with your argument is that new computer languages arise all the time. Even now...
When Ruby first came out I couldn't even decide whether I was interested because everything was only in Japanese, and it's still true than many libraries are first released with only Japanese documentation, and the English follows later...sometimes over a year later.
The current generation of languages clearly favors English speakers, but it's not like the Air-Traffic controllers, there's no real need for new languages to be internationally intelligible.
No. French was not the reason for "SOS" (no periods!). French was the reason for "Mayday" (the French phrase was "m'aider", a shortened version of "venez m'aider" [meaning "come and help me"]). (Thanks, Google)
You can call it simple, but it isn't, really. You could also deny that it's a single language...and that's "sort of" correct. Mandarin and Cantonese aren't *that* different. The problem, traditionally, is that because it was a tonal language, different villages could be mutually unintelligible. Tonal languages are subject to strong pressures for variation as different people have difficult in speaking, or hearing different tones. So there is a quick separation as different populations learn from different speakers. Note that the grammar and vocabulary would remain the same, so a non-phonetic writing system could be universal.
Well, I said that was the traditional problem. I have a rather strong suspicion that radio and television have exerted a strong homogenizing effect, so that everyone now learns the tones of the Chinese equivalent of BBC English. So the language is probably becoming much more uniform. (This is a hypothesis, as all of my information is from older sources. Perhaps someone else will affirm or deny it?)
In a way it's like asking "What's the simplest computer language?". (And assembler doesn't count.) You *could* say, and defend, that Forth or Lisp* were the simplest language. Or that C was. Or even that Ada was. It all depends on exactly how you're looking at "simple".
* Not Common Lisp, but Lisp 1.5, before it started adding complexities into the language.
It's much worse than that. The unemployment rate is a jiggered number. What's significant is the labor force participation rate. (I'm not sure what it's currently called.) The way unemployment is figured you can have been out of work for a year and not be counted. And if you see the labor force participation rate, try to determine what population that the figure is based on. And who gets counted as participating. (E.g., if an H1B worker is counted as participating, is he also counted as a part of the population used in calculating the rate.)
Governments play all sorts of tricks with their economic numbers to make them look good. Even when the numbers are honest you can't trust them without looking at the details.
Slashdot Mirror
Malice seems a reasonable assumption, but I think at this point the verdict has to be "not proven". It is, however, a good reason to avoid HP in either case.
Too late. It happened before you posted.
IIUC, if you want to open the blood-brain barrier, you use ultrasound rather than microwaves.
There are degrees and degrees. Look up "superstitious conditioning" in a good psychology text. Certainly it's easy to realize that certain identified things are superstitions, but that's just scratching the surface.
It also requires a lot of time and fine attention to detail. Many people are valid experts within a specific range of topics, but pontificate well outside that range. And there are a LOT of topics. Don't trust a chemist on nuclear physics or politics, or a nuclear physicist on chemistry or politics. I'm not sure what you can trust a politician on. They don't always even lie.
I've seen recommendations for water...but always emphasizing care in application. The people who write the instructions have a better idea about their audience. Soap? Are you sure? I don't even recall a recommendation for the use on soap on the case, much less the screen (and it's the screen where the micro-fiber cloths are appropriate).
Still, I only read the summary. Perhaps he was misquoted. But I doubt it. It sounds like the kind of recommendation that marketers often make.
This is not totally clear. In the days of sailing ships it was expected that homosexuality would increase while the ships were at sea, and it has been reported that cabin boys had duties not normally recorded. But nobody ever claimed that when the ships came into port the sailors weren't sexually active with women.
So quite plausibly, when one source of sexual relief is removed, another will be used. If so, then a celibate clergy might well be expected to have non-standard sexual outlets of various kinds.
You need to study history. It will make you a bit cynical about humans, but if you study real history, it will help you understand people (admittedly, only in the abstract).
People don't easily understand certain things, and have certain intuitive "knowledges" that aren't accurate. (Calling them false is wrong, because they are less wrong that certain alternative beliefs.) E.g., people don't understand acceleration. Even people who can correctly calculate it and calculate the result don't understand it. Ask them to predict the result without calculating, and you'll get something more related to a linear result. Now there are lots of subtle tricks that can be used to enable a linear calculation to predict some kinds of acceleration. Baseball fielders are a well studied example. But it's still a linear prediction.
There are many kinds of things that people either do or don't easily believe. One of these is agency. People tend to impute agency to anything that moves against the background in an way that is not intuitively predictable. And they tend to worship power. Worship includes the concept of "unreasonable". This has been very useful over evolutionary time. The unpredicted noise may well be the sign of a predator. Fighting the powerful is dangerous. It does lead to anthropomorphizing, but that can also be useful when you don't have a better explanation. And children don't. And people are reluctant to change their minds.
All of these in combination mean that reasoned though is unusual. During periods when it's quite successful it's valued, but when politics dominates, it lapses.
Study the histories of Greece and Rome (I don't know China well enough, but I think there too). Reasoned discourse was at times well valued, and at other times lapsed. We remember particular decades when there was a "golden age" that generally lasted for around two generations. The rest of the time...well, literature doesn't depend on this, but the arts reflect the rest of society.
So. Currently we have a highly developed science, which is so expertise intensive that nobody understands much more than their own particular branch, with lesser degrees of understanding in related fields, and a tendency to apply the metaphors and methods that work in their area of expertise well beyond their range of validity. So experts are always saying foolish things, and not realizing it, AND ALSO OTHERS CAN'T TELL. How do you tell a real expert in the area in which his is talking about from some inflated ego speaking where he doesn't really understand. This tends to be fertile ground for fake experts, who are really only experts at being con-men. So trust in experts declines. I can't really say "trust in rationality declines" as what those who accept experts (everyone in some field or other) are using isn't actually rationality.
WARNING: I'm not an expert historian. Or Sociologist. Or Psychologist. So don't think of this screed as the proclamation of an expert. Evaluate it against your own experience.
They're special is they're something additional that you need to have. If you wear glasses you probably already need them, and there are other needs.
OTOH, *SOAP*??? You don't want to use something that leaves residue on a screen! Water?? You want to be careful about water around powered on electronics. (Yeah, you can use it, but in tiny amounts, and be careful.) And he's saying this to the public? This idiot doesn't know what he's talking about.
... (Besides, more of the stuff I want to read is now available ...
That comment about liquid is one of the reasons I hate e-books.
OTOH, they do have advantages, and I've been thinking of getting a paperback sized phone or tablet to see whether modern screens are more readable. (Besides, more of the stuff I want to read is no available DRM-free. The rest can go stuff itself. It will either be paper or ignored.)
Point taken. But I still don't understand why they went with pseudo-suede rather than pseudo-cork, or even a tough pseudo-sponge (though that might not look as nice).
OTOH, from the comments above, his comments about cleaning are unjustified. Apparently it's usually easy to clean.
You *might* need to remove all servers from the EU, though that isn't clear. Better to try appealing first.
Perhaps you need to ensure you never do business with any country that is in a position to shut you down. Now that Britain is withdrawing from the EU you could put all your servers that handle the EU in Britain and all the servers that handle Britain in the EU. Possibly split into two separate corporations (with initially identical ownership). Etc. Then an EU court would need to get agreement from Britain and conversely. This could still happen, but it would be a major roadblock.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a country in the world that doesn't have people that feel that way in power. Some are more blatant about it than others. And by "in power" I don't necessarily mean the top spot, though I also don't exclude it. The courts in the US have done similar things. So has Britain. I believe I've heard basically similar rulings from every major country that is English speaking, and the one's that don't aren't covered well in the media that I follow.
Black Maid? The Mary Poppins books that I read didn't *have* a black maid. The maid's name *might* have been Sarah, but when she was described it was quite clear that she was caucasian and lower class (as seen by a banker's family).
The interesting thing is, the last I heard both Gnome and KDE ran on BSDs. And the FreeBSD website currently lists both of them as choices.
Either that, or they are bending to pressure from the executive branch.
OTOH, I remember a huge amount of "alarm" and "concern" about a "wardrobe malfunction", so they could just be being their normal prissy bastards.
FWIW I tend to name my counters i, j, k. After that I start to get creative. I trace that naming pattern back to Fortran IV, where that was the recommended pattern, and names could only be six letters long, but it's become a tradition in multiple languages since then. I could find examples in C and Java texts.
The thing is, for a short piece of code a long name is a waste of time. If something's less than around 20 lines long, a fancy name is a waste unless it's doing something external to those 20 lines. (Yay! Block Structures!).
The official definitions sound good. Now, how do they determine those numbers? Population comes from census, and that is known to undercount certain groups. Sometimes drastically. But it's possible to estimate (without known error bars) by how much. Employed persons comes from withholding taxes, etc., and is probably the most accurate number in the batch...though even there there's double counting of some people and missing of others. So there are reasonable ways of estimating the Labor Force Participation Rate, but the error bars aren't obvious. And illegal immigrants wouldn't be properly counted. And there are various other problems with the data, not all pushing in the same direction.
But that's the important number, because that's the one that has a relatively straightforward meaning. Saying that someone is "discouraged from looking for work" isn't helpful. Does that mean they sponge off relatives? Does that mean they do part-time work and are paid under the counter? Does it mean they took up petty theft as a profession? What? Welfare often won't even cover the rent, so there's got to be something, and in a city you can't even really try subsistence farming.
The real problem with your argument is that new computer languages arise all the time. Even now...
When Ruby first came out I couldn't even decide whether I was interested because everything was only in Japanese, and it's still true than many libraries are first released with only Japanese documentation, and the English follows later...sometimes over a year later.
The current generation of languages clearly favors English speakers, but it's not like the Air-Traffic controllers, there's no real need for new languages to be internationally intelligible.
You should consider the sad history of the Bablefish.
No. French was not the reason for "SOS" (no periods!). French was the reason for "Mayday" (the French phrase was "m'aider", a shortened version of "venez m'aider" [meaning "come and help me"]). (Thanks, Google)
You can call it simple, but it isn't, really. You could also deny that it's a single language...and that's "sort of" correct. Mandarin and Cantonese aren't *that* different. The problem, traditionally, is that because it was a tonal language, different villages could be mutually unintelligible. Tonal languages are subject to strong pressures for variation as different people have difficult in speaking, or hearing different tones. So there is a quick separation as different populations learn from different speakers. Note that the grammar and vocabulary would remain the same, so a non-phonetic writing system could be universal.
Well, I said that was the traditional problem. I have a rather strong suspicion that radio and television have exerted a strong homogenizing effect, so that everyone now learns the tones of the Chinese equivalent of BBC English. So the language is probably becoming much more uniform. (This is a hypothesis, as all of my information is from older sources. Perhaps someone else will affirm or deny it?)
In a way it's like asking "What's the simplest computer language?". (And assembler doesn't count.) You *could* say, and defend, that Forth or Lisp* were the simplest language. Or that C was. Or even that Ada was. It all depends on exactly how you're looking at "simple".
* Not Common Lisp, but Lisp 1.5, before it started adding complexities into the language.
Unfortunately, predicting that people will forget is pretty much an accurate prediction, unless it's about sex.
It's much worse than that. The unemployment rate is a jiggered number. What's significant is the labor force participation rate. (I'm not sure what it's currently called.) The way unemployment is figured you can have been out of work for a year and not be counted. And if you see the labor force participation rate, try to determine what population that the figure is based on. And who gets counted as participating. (E.g., if an H1B worker is counted as participating, is he also counted as a part of the population used in calculating the rate.)
Governments play all sorts of tricks with their economic numbers to make them look good. Even when the numbers are honest you can't trust them without looking at the details.