Who gets to define neutral though? One man's fact is another man's propaganda.
The people who care enough to show up for the discussion. If you've got partisans on all sides and some people who just want a good article, the partisans will be trying to appeal to the neutral people, and the result will be an article that explains most viewpoints in a way that doesn't explicitly endorse those viewpoints but that both someone of that viewpoint and someone who vehemently disagrees with it can live with. The problem is issues that few people care about, so it might end up that everyone who cares to edit the article have the same viewpoint.
Short term trading generally creates market liquidity, which is necessary for the market to function even remotely efficiently.
That makes sense to me if by short term you mean trading where you hold an asset for, say, a day or two. If I'm looking to sell something for an actual reason of, say, needing the money, in most cases I just need an opportunity to sell within a day or two and probably within a week will be just fine. I don't understand how sub-second trading helps this kind of liquidity in any way.
If you are going to interpret this as "give me money or suffer consequences", and saying that is extortion, then almost every single situation involving money exchanging hands is extortion. Saying "I'll work for you if you pay me" almost always also means "I won't work for you if you don't pay me." That is negotiation.
Yeah, H is at 0.5 parts per million. You can still make oil and water from air. Good thing there is a lot of air:) There is also a lot of water, so if it contained some kind of poison you couldn't distill out otherwise, then it should at least be possible to crack it, extract the H2 and reform it to make pure water, which I would guess would still be cheaper than getting it from air, even (or perhaps especially) assuming that energy is free. Doesn't change the fact that you can make air and oil from air, though.
Yeah, I forgot to mention C. That makes absolutely no difference to the conclusion, though, and I don't know why you think it does. You might have heard about how air contains CO2 at 0.033% by volume. That's a C right there, and that is the C used in photo-synthesis, which I hear is a process used somewhere - The other component is water, H20. So if you have enough energy you can turn air into oil, if you have enough energy you don't even need any air. In fact air + energy is where the oil we use today comes from in the first place! Photo-synthesis to create biological material that then gets changed into oil through heat and pressure (=energy). Is that facts enough for you?
PS. If you had enough energy, maybe oil isn't the substance you would choose to make, and if you did maybe you wouldn't choose to start from air. That may or may not be true, but it does not change the fact that you can make oil from air if you have enough energy, and the deeper fact that if you have enough energy, then oil and water is no longer a problem.
If you have enough energy at your disposal, both oil and water are non-issues. Water is H20 and there is H and O2 floating about in the air. All it takes to make it into H20 is energy. Oil is also made of H and O, and all it takes to turn air into oil is energy. Hell, if you have enough energy, you can make the H and O from scratch if you really want to due to E=MC2. Energy is all you need.
The problem with fission reactors is that when the control rods fail, the enriched uranium does what it naturally does and continues to release neutrons in a chain reaction.
I'm sure that you are already aware of this, but just so that anyone reading this don't misunderstand, this kind of thing can only happen using a crap-tastic fission reactor design. In a non-ancient reactor design, what will naturally happen if the process goes out of control is that some passive mechanism will disrupt the process. E.g. the reaction material will expand from the heat so much that a lot of it will spill out of the reactor and thus halt the process because there won't be enough material left to sustain a chain reaction. Chernobyl happened because a test was run on purpose of the kind "let's disable all safety mechanisms and run the reactor at max and see what happens." If you do even that in a modern reactor, nothing will happen due to the reactor design.
Nice strawman. Nothing like that can be inferred by what I wrote and you know it. This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to when I said that I've found discussion on this topic to be particularly fruitless and pointless.
I have spent quite a while reading about the science of IQ and innate ability. It boggles my mind that some people doubt that people have different genes and that genes have an impact on performance in many situations. I don't care to discuss it because I've found discussions on this topic to be particularly fruitless and pointless. I suspect the reason for that is that the problems people have with this theory are political in nature and not really about the science.
Yeah, that could suck. It might be a good idea to have these people be anonymous, at least in those cases that don't end well. It's not so different from a surgeon who can do wonderful things and can also screw up.
You'd have to be a spectacular sort of psychopath to not be fully engaged with saving the plane you are remotely controlling when it has lots of people on it. It's just not an issue. The reliability of the technology is the real issue, and that is what this study is studying.
This could be much safer, actually. Granted, something like choosing the best place for a crash landing may not be the kind of thing you could so easily program, since it would require information such as where there were likely to be people, what the ground seems to be made of and such. You can't very easily pre-program this since you don't know where a plane is going to be needing to make an emergency landing. On the other hand, you can have this sort of thing raise a flag in a remote location. There you can have the best pilot in the world on stand-by to pilot such crash landings remotely, and he can be someone specially trained to do nothing but crash landings, and since he isn't on the plane, you won't lose him in those situations that can't be saved. Today you are stuck with whatever quality pilot happens to be in the cockpit, and having experience with crashes is likely to mean that the pilot is dead and his experience wasted.
So if the remote control technology can be made secure enough from tampering and reliable enough, then this sort of thing could even make crashes less deadly. Imagine having a Sully in every plane that crashes.
When I was at a hospital, I had the impression that the nurses would not stop a conversation with me about a medical matter, even if they thought I was being silly and wasting their time. It seemed pretty clear to me that there was a rule about that, unless they had an emergency somewhere else, or at least that they choose to follow such a rule. Yet, when the doctor wanted to speak to one of the nurses in the hall-way, he physically grabbed a hold of her arm so that she would be unable to move away for the duration of what he wanted to tell her. That just seemed incredibly rude to me and I know that I would immediately free myself if anyone tried that with me, boss or not. Instituting a saying please policy to counter that kind of culture seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Another aspect is that it is perfectly possible to be rude, bossy and obnoxious while saying please.
I suspect if more Americans travelled abroad (few do), studied a second language in school (or otherwise learned some basic Latin or Greek), things would be very different.
I don't know that you are wrong, though I suspect from my own example that you are. I speak English as a second language and have spent more than a year in the US. I speak English well enough that Americans would sometimes ask me which state I was from because they couldn't quite place my accent. As far as I am aware, this has done nothing to improve the way I speak or write my native language. I'm sure that the language training will make it a lot easier to learn a third language if I should so choose, though. If Americans speak English poorly I would think that that is because they take themselves as the definition of the right way to speak, and at that point seeking further skill becomes meaningless. A certain way of speaking can also mark you as a member of a group of people who speak that way, and then starting to speak better is more importantly speaking differently, like you were an outsider.
That does not back up his intuition. It demonstrates that effort is relevant, not that it is more important than innate ability. In any case saying which is "more important" is hard when both are obviously necessary to get anywhere. If you are mentally retarded you are going to have problems getting ahead no matter how much effort you expend. If all you do is sit and stare at a wall, your innate ability is irrelevant.
What such a study would do (if we had a link to back i up), would be to demonstrate that a certain psychological technique is more effective than another. Thinking that effort is more important may be a good psychological technique, even if it isn't true. Because it can push you to expend more effort, which will help you get further even if your own effort was only 1% of the equation.
And then suddenly you end up in the situation the Catholic Church is in. The police does have to be trusted to a point. The police does not have to be trusted unconditionally.
There are already laws against defamation. If the protections against defamation are inadequate, then it needs to be strengthened for everyone, not for the police in particular.
Most people aren't intelligent enough to assess the quality of their own thinking. In fact most people aren't even able to think straight most of the time.
I'd think that intelligent people are more able to believe whatever they want because they can come up with better arguments in favor of what they want to believe, and they less often run into other people who able to show them obviously wrong. Intelligence makes you able to consider more things, it does little to remove the bias in the way that you think about those things.
In that hypothetical scenario, do you support prosecuting that 16 year old girl? Yes or No. BTW, if you say no, then you (by your own statements) are enabling sexual predators to rape a child. If you say yes you lack enough common sense for anyone to bother taking any more of your comments seriously.
Well, gee, let's see, um, so you basically are telling me there's no right way to answer the question you say I'm dodging? Obviously, not warranting your trap question with an answer was the best answer I could have given, and should speak volumes for my common sense.
What is becoming patently obvious is that you are choosing not to answer the question because you already know that if you answer the question then it becomes obvious that your position is untenable. You've painted yourself into such a corner that you desperately don't want to do that, and so you refuse to answer the question. This is not a trap or trick question, it's not something like "when did you stop beating your wife?", it's simply a question about how your position applies to a simple and very relevant situation - people have been found guilty in such situations in the US, so it's not even hypothetical. It's like you saying "if I had to think about your argument, then I would have to either support a contradiction or admit that I'm wrong, so I lose either way. It then speaks volumes about my common sense that I refuse to think about your argument." You are certainly right about the last part. Good job to QCompson.
Way ti really, really oversimplify. If CP was just 17 year olds that you had no reason to believe they where below legal age, you would have a point.
I can't imagine that it actually isn't mostly this. Think about how many people are really turned on by 10 year olds - not a lot. Now think about how many people will by mistake have plausibly-18 images on their computer, without them knowing that it's actually CP, and then think about the number of people who got CP on their computer because it appeared in their surfing and they then closed the window because they didn't want it. Now it's in their browser cache which is still possession. This can happen to anyone who surf's for porn, with a fairly large chance of it happening to any one such person in their lifetime, and now compare the number of people surfing for porn to the number of people being turned on by 10 year olds. I can only imagine that by far most people who are in violation of CP laws actually have no wish to be so. If you told me it was 99.9%, I would be surprised it wasn't 99.99% or even much less.
What's worse is that that remaining 0.1% or whatever it is isn't doing something very bad anyway, and we are jailing all these other completely random porn surfers just to catch them. Distributing CP is akin to defamation of the person in the picture and should be punished as such. Possession of CP is possession of defamatory material and should have the same punishment (none? I imagine so), with the giant bonus that then we won't be jailing people who don't even want CP anyway but somehow are in possession of it. Actually producing CP or paying/urging someone to produce CP is of course very bad, especially with small children and not just 17 year olds. So that is what should be illegal and carry some heavy punishment - around the same as rape. Japan has this exactly right and the barbarians in the western world are getting them to bow down to their idiocy because apparently we like throwing innocent people in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets to define neutral though? One man's fact is another man's propaganda.
The people who care enough to show up for the discussion. If you've got partisans on all sides and some people who just want a good article, the partisans will be trying to appeal to the neutral people, and the result will be an article that explains most viewpoints in a way that doesn't explicitly endorse those viewpoints but that both someone of that viewpoint and someone who vehemently disagrees with it can live with. The problem is issues that few people care about, so it might end up that everyone who cares to edit the article have the same viewpoint.
Short term trading generally creates market liquidity, which is necessary for the market to function even remotely efficiently.
That makes sense to me if by short term you mean trading where you hold an asset for, say, a day or two. If I'm looking to sell something for an actual reason of, say, needing the money, in most cases I just need an opportunity to sell within a day or two and probably within a week will be just fine. I don't understand how sub-second trading helps this kind of liquidity in any way.
Or he could find work at a place actually worth working at. Might do wonders for his life expectancy.
If you are going to interpret this as "give me money or suffer consequences", and saying that is extortion, then almost every single situation involving money exchanging hands is extortion. Saying "I'll work for you if you pay me" almost always also means "I won't work for you if you don't pay me." That is negotiation.
Yeah, H is at 0.5 parts per million. You can still make oil and water from air. Good thing there is a lot of air :) There is also a lot of water, so if it contained some kind of poison you couldn't distill out otherwise, then it should at least be possible to crack it, extract the H2 and reform it to make pure water, which I would guess would still be cheaper than getting it from air, even (or perhaps especially) assuming that energy is free. Doesn't change the fact that you can make air and oil from air, though.
Yeah, I forgot to mention C. That makes absolutely no difference to the conclusion, though, and I don't know why you think it does. You might have heard about how air contains CO2 at 0.033% by volume. That's a C right there, and that is the C used in photo-synthesis, which I hear is a process used somewhere - The other component is water, H20. So if you have enough energy you can turn air into oil, if you have enough energy you don't even need any air. In fact air + energy is where the oil we use today comes from in the first place! Photo-synthesis to create biological material that then gets changed into oil through heat and pressure (=energy). Is that facts enough for you?
Here is my source for the 0.033% CO2:
http://mistupid.com/chemistry/aircomp.htm
PS. If you had enough energy, maybe oil isn't the substance you would choose to make, and if you did maybe you wouldn't choose to start from air. That may or may not be true, but it does not change the fact that you can make oil from air if you have enough energy, and the deeper fact that if you have enough energy, then oil and water is no longer a problem.
Adoption studies refute this. I will cease responding to this now.
That someone was wrong once somewhere does not invalidate all of human knowledge.
If you have enough energy at your disposal, both oil and water are non-issues. Water is H20 and there is H and O2 floating about in the air. All it takes to make it into H20 is energy. Oil is also made of H and O, and all it takes to turn air into oil is energy. Hell, if you have enough energy, you can make the H and O from scratch if you really want to due to E=MC2. Energy is all you need.
The problem with fission reactors is that when the control rods fail, the enriched uranium does what it naturally does and continues to release neutrons in a chain reaction.
I'm sure that you are already aware of this, but just so that anyone reading this don't misunderstand, this kind of thing can only happen using a crap-tastic fission reactor design. In a non-ancient reactor design, what will naturally happen if the process goes out of control is that some passive mechanism will disrupt the process. E.g. the reaction material will expand from the heat so much that a lot of it will spill out of the reactor and thus halt the process because there won't be enough material left to sustain a chain reaction. Chernobyl happened because a test was run on purpose of the kind "let's disable all safety mechanisms and run the reactor at max and see what happens." If you do even that in a modern reactor, nothing will happen due to the reactor design.
Nice strawman. Nothing like that can be inferred by what I wrote and you know it. This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to when I said that I've found discussion on this topic to be particularly fruitless and pointless.
I have spent quite a while reading about the science of IQ and innate ability. It boggles my mind that some people doubt that people have different genes and that genes have an impact on performance in many situations. I don't care to discuss it because I've found discussions on this topic to be particularly fruitless and pointless. I suspect the reason for that is that the problems people have with this theory are political in nature and not really about the science.
Yeah, that could suck. It might be a good idea to have these people be anonymous, at least in those cases that don't end well. It's not so different from a surgeon who can do wonderful things and can also screw up.
You'd have to be a spectacular sort of psychopath to not be fully engaged with saving the plane you are remotely controlling when it has lots of people on it. It's just not an issue. The reliability of the technology is the real issue, and that is what this study is studying.
This could be much safer, actually. Granted, something like choosing the best place for a crash landing may not be the kind of thing you could so easily program, since it would require information such as where there were likely to be people, what the ground seems to be made of and such. You can't very easily pre-program this since you don't know where a plane is going to be needing to make an emergency landing. On the other hand, you can have this sort of thing raise a flag in a remote location. There you can have the best pilot in the world on stand-by to pilot such crash landings remotely, and he can be someone specially trained to do nothing but crash landings, and since he isn't on the plane, you won't lose him in those situations that can't be saved. Today you are stuck with whatever quality pilot happens to be in the cockpit, and having experience with crashes is likely to mean that the pilot is dead and his experience wasted.
So if the remote control technology can be made secure enough from tampering and reliable enough, then this sort of thing could even make crashes less deadly. Imagine having a Sully in every plane that crashes.
When I was at a hospital, I had the impression that the nurses would not stop a conversation with me about a medical matter, even if they thought I was being silly and wasting their time. It seemed pretty clear to me that there was a rule about that, unless they had an emergency somewhere else, or at least that they choose to follow such a rule. Yet, when the doctor wanted to speak to one of the nurses in the hall-way, he physically grabbed a hold of her arm so that she would be unable to move away for the duration of what he wanted to tell her. That just seemed incredibly rude to me and I know that I would immediately free myself if anyone tried that with me, boss or not. Instituting a saying please policy to counter that kind of culture seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Another aspect is that it is perfectly possible to be rude, bossy and obnoxious while saying please.
I suspect if more Americans travelled abroad (few do), studied a second language in school (or otherwise learned some basic Latin or Greek), things would be very different.
I don't know that you are wrong, though I suspect from my own example that you are. I speak English as a second language and have spent more than a year in the US. I speak English well enough that Americans would sometimes ask me which state I was from because they couldn't quite place my accent. As far as I am aware, this has done nothing to improve the way I speak or write my native language. I'm sure that the language training will make it a lot easier to learn a third language if I should so choose, though. If Americans speak English poorly I would think that that is because they take themselves as the definition of the right way to speak, and at that point seeking further skill becomes meaningless. A certain way of speaking can also mark you as a member of a group of people who speak that way, and then starting to speak better is more importantly speaking differently, like you were an outsider.
That does not back up his intuition. It demonstrates that effort is relevant, not that it is more important than innate ability. In any case saying which is "more important" is hard when both are obviously necessary to get anywhere. If you are mentally retarded you are going to have problems getting ahead no matter how much effort you expend. If all you do is sit and stare at a wall, your innate ability is irrelevant.
What such a study would do (if we had a link to back i up), would be to demonstrate that a certain psychological technique is more effective than another. Thinking that effort is more important may be a good psychological technique, even if it isn't true. Because it can push you to expend more effort, which will help you get further even if your own effort was only 1% of the equation.
And then suddenly you end up in the situation the Catholic Church is in. The police does have to be trusted to a point. The police does not have to be trusted unconditionally.
There are already laws against defamation. If the protections against defamation are inadequate, then it needs to be strengthened for everyone, not for the police in particular.
Most people aren't intelligent enough to assess the quality of their own thinking. In fact most people aren't even able to think straight most of the time.
I'd think that intelligent people are more able to believe whatever they want because they can come up with better arguments in favor of what they want to believe, and they less often run into other people who able to show them obviously wrong. Intelligence makes you able to consider more things, it does little to remove the bias in the way that you think about those things.
In that hypothetical scenario, do you support prosecuting that 16 year old girl? Yes or No. BTW, if you say no, then you (by your own statements) are enabling sexual predators to rape a child. If you say yes you lack enough common sense for anyone to bother taking any more of your comments seriously.
Well, gee, let's see, um, so you basically are telling me there's no right way to answer the question you say I'm dodging? Obviously, not warranting your trap question with an answer was the best answer I could have given, and should speak volumes for my common sense.
What is becoming patently obvious is that you are choosing not to answer the question because you already know that if you answer the question then it becomes obvious that your position is untenable. You've painted yourself into such a corner that you desperately don't want to do that, and so you refuse to answer the question. This is not a trap or trick question, it's not something like "when did you stop beating your wife?", it's simply a question about how your position applies to a simple and very relevant situation - people have been found guilty in such situations in the US, so it's not even hypothetical. It's like you saying "if I had to think about your argument, then I would have to either support a contradiction or admit that I'm wrong, so I lose either way. It then speaks volumes about my common sense that I refuse to think about your argument." You are certainly right about the last part. Good job to QCompson.
Way ti really, really oversimplify. If CP was just 17 year olds that you had no reason to believe they where below legal age, you would have a point.
I can't imagine that it actually isn't mostly this. Think about how many people are really turned on by 10 year olds - not a lot. Now think about how many people will by mistake have plausibly-18 images on their computer, without them knowing that it's actually CP, and then think about the number of people who got CP on their computer because it appeared in their surfing and they then closed the window because they didn't want it. Now it's in their browser cache which is still possession. This can happen to anyone who surf's for porn, with a fairly large chance of it happening to any one such person in their lifetime, and now compare the number of people surfing for porn to the number of people being turned on by 10 year olds. I can only imagine that by far most people who are in violation of CP laws actually have no wish to be so. If you told me it was 99.9%, I would be surprised it wasn't 99.99% or even much less.
What's worse is that that remaining 0.1% or whatever it is isn't doing something very bad anyway, and we are jailing all these other completely random porn surfers just to catch them. Distributing CP is akin to defamation of the person in the picture and should be punished as such. Possession of CP is possession of defamatory material and should have the same punishment (none? I imagine so), with the giant bonus that then we won't be jailing people who don't even want CP anyway but somehow are in possession of it. Actually producing CP or paying/urging someone to produce CP is of course very bad, especially with small children and not just 17 year olds. So that is what should be illegal and carry some heavy punishment - around the same as rape. Japan has this exactly right and the barbarians in the western world are getting them to bow down to their idiocy because apparently we like throwing innocent people in jail.
It does look a bit like a plastic snake.
No.