I can't believe you'd let a child handle dangerous munitions so casually! The child might be mistaken for a target and taken out by government hunter drones! Your child could trigger DefCon Ultimate! Won't someone think of the children?!
Careful, please. Yes, this study needs to be replicated by other researchers before it can be really acted upon. But rejecting a scientific finding ONLY on the grounds that you don't like the answer is also sad. You plausibly note other sources of cheating. Those should be investigated and ruled out as causes. But if indeed winning does encourage cheating, it is not sad at all to demonstrate that and make people aware of it. That's how we become better aware of our own natures.
The trick is to RTFA. Those two sentences are from different contexts but the summary shoved them together. One is talking about the latest iOS, the other is talking about older versions that aren't end-to-end encrypted.
Oh... and it might not be alien megastructures. It might be human megastructures after we invented time travel. Once we say "well, anything might be possible in the future", we open the door to all sorts of conjecture. There's brainstorming and then there's reasonable suspicion. At this time, alien megastructure is just brainstorming. Keep looking for data!
Sad truth: the messenger matters to how we get the message. We've seen a slew of stories along those lines -- physics tests lower if gender is known, violin auditions need to be anonymous to be judged on sound quality, insufficient peer review given to bad ideas of famous scientists such that death is the only thing that opens up the field to opponents (I can't find my citation on that one, but it was in the news last year), and just the fact that we reject ideas that come from political opponents, regardless of facts.
But at the same time, true anonymity makes people behave in a much crueler way (much better cites exist, but this one will do for today). And all those "AC" labels make it hard to carry on a conversation -- I can't tell when the same person replies to me. Also, that name eventually develops a reputation for making good comments, which makes it possible to dredge out of the morass of people who just dump inanity, attacks, or lies -- those get recognized over time.
The pseudonym of Slashdot seems to me to be a pretty good compromise. Pick a number to be your screen name, something large and random to avoid any connotations. But give me something to see you as a source of information.
On any given day, 10000 people are encountering the concept for the very first time. The important memes warrant repetition or they are lost to the next generation. https://xkcd.com/1053/
A fifth of the star in a century implies some numbers regarding minimum amount of mass necessary and the energy to move that mass. What I've seen elsewhere says that if there were going to be, say, a Dyson ring or Dyson sphere built that quick, the mass would have to be already in place, meaning the star would already be dimmed. Oh, there are some outside ways to compensate, which is why alien megastructure is still a possibility, but they're pretty extreme energy balances that we think we'd see being expended in such a system -- big increase in heat, for one thing. So alien megastructure is on the table, but considered unlikely, so other options are still being sought. Going direct to alien megastructure at this juncture is no different than going directly to "magic happened" or "some deity decided to change local physics". We must have more evidence to boost the probability of that option before it can be considered likely.
"I just don't feel like shining any more. I'm watching the sentients on my local planet, and they're just mean to each other. It's so sad to watch. I give up. I'm tired of burning hydrogen for these ungrateful whelps. All this fusion for them is giving me iron streaks! Not worth it. I'm going to go spend a few petaseconds focused on some other projects that are less work intensive for me."
RequiredSnark, AC does have one good point -- your opening sentence is an assertion... needs an "I suspect" in there somewhere. She may not be upset at all... she might be coldly calculating after the death of a husband she didn't like in the first place the best way to make money from the bastard's passing. She might be blackmailed by some third party into launching this lawsuit and not really want to do it at all. She might have motivations that have nothing to do with Free Speech, the spread of ISIS, or any of the obvious ramifications of her lawsuit. IF she is acting out of anger and a need for revenge, then the rest of your comments apply.
And, by the way, "the official automobile company of ISIS" is a disturbing thought in some ways... ISIS has been very good at its branding messages. It wouldn't surprise me if they started trying to make such claims. Can you imagine how much damage ISIS could do to a company just by claiming "that's our favorite brand!" Propaganda is a fascinating weapon.
This is why bans on any form of speech are a bad idea. They inevitably end up imbalanced and biased at some point. Even something as simple as "no messages calling for anyone to be killed" are hard to apply to posts like "He should be removed from office by any means necessary." Is that a death threat? Should it be censored by the calls to be killed? These subjective calls are impossible for a neutral third party to apply -- they end up taking sides, and when your communication medium takes sides, then they can be bought or controlled by one side. That's when free speech ends.
I suggest something like an FDA or FCC that is required to give approval for any device sold in the USA that it meets security standards. There's no way most people will recognize the need for a plurality of networks, and even if they do, having a webcam on a separate network still doesn't prevent it from phoning home and sending photos of your house to criminals wanting to see if you're not there right now. Without a vetting agency of some sort, these devices are going to continuously cause problems for the USA and home security. I'm aware of the problem and can't necessarily vet a device that I'm interested in. I'd love some support in this area, be it government or corporate, although regulation certification is one of those areas where I personally would trust a government agency more.
And that's why some industries have unions. Unions reply to the boss and say, "No, those 30 resumes don't mean shit. Now hire me some damn help or we all go on strike."
It's a balance of power, and in the USA, we have broken a lot of the union authority -- whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but the fact is, we have broken that authority. Putting it back is an option.
Exactly this. People wonder why unions have rules against working outside of your job description or ban people from working extra hours... it's because of this effect. Anyone who volunteers their time for a corporation ends up forcing everyone else to become a volunteer because corporations will hire/promote those who give them the most free time -- emphasis on "free" as a *price* of your time.
And agreeing to work for salary instead of hourly is agreeing to donate free time.
You and the anonymous poster just said exactly the same thing. Go read the post again.
What the AC is saying is that corporations take advantage of the fact that people are willing to work 50 hours for a 40 hour wage. Volunteering in a capitalist system gets monetized and turns, within a few years, into a requirement: management rewards those who volunteer their time for free, which locks people out of the system who don't volunteer, which forces everyone to become a volunteer. This is why unions often include clauses that _ban_ people from working outside of their job description. Volunteerism erodes the free time of everyone who would like to actually have free time. Some people in an industry agreeing to work for salary means everyone who wishes they could get paid hourly and compensated for their overtime can't compete in the employee marketplace, so soon everyone has to work for salary in that industry.
Donating your time to a corporation screws your co-workers. But in the USA, we've been taught to see that as an admirable trait: hard working, dedicated, and selfless.
SuperKendall: Although you are right in absolute numbers -- the tide did raise all boats -- it raised some boat exponentially more than other boats, to such a degree that you now have some people that can essentially ignore periodic economic contractions, while others sink mightily in such times. Xyrus is correct insofar as the amount that the poorest got raised is negligible-to-the-point-of-ignorable compared to the amount the richest got raised. That's pretty much the whole summary of the discoveries compiled by Piketty's book that made such a splash in 2014.
Do the sellers get to determine the price of the sale? Who computes the market value for something that has only one seller and only one buyer? The amount of R&D that went into an idea, the potential revenue from the item's sale, and the startup capital needed to start production... these are hard things to compute, and I doubt they could be fairly computed.
We could skip a generation and go straight to their kids! You know... the people *raised* by millenials!:-) Any argument that a whole generation is bunk is pretty ridiculous, IMHO.
At the moment, no string theory that I know of proposes and testable theory, with current or future technology. There's nothing within the model that would let us discriminate at a macro layer whether it is true or not. Same is true with multiverse at the moment -- if another universe were to collide with ours, we might spot its signature, but in the absence of such an event, there's no test that can be run to rule multiverse in or out thus far. If someone comes up with a way to do such a test, then it becomes a theory.
Astrology *was* science at one time. A huge number of early scientists circa 1800s were into astrology. And it has its footprints in a lot of earlier work that became modern science. Astrology made a lot of predictions. Eventually, we discarded it. It is an _invalid_ scientific theory. It is one of the dead ends of science research, but that doesn't invalidate the history.
The theory I've seen going around online is that if it is too heavy to carry, it might be explosive. Things light enough to carry make poor shrapnel. I'm not sure I buy this argument, but there it is.
There's no need for a warrant when *you* call the police. The driver had this feature in the car voluntarily -- you have to pay for it to keep working. This was the driver's choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the web search after you accept/reject the change. Keeps you free of bias and lets you learn what motivated them later.
> In particular, it can mean testing more thoroughly instead. That explanation would be under "are more competent than men" wouldn't it?
I can't believe you'd let a child handle dangerous munitions so casually! The child might be mistaken for a target and taken out by government hunter drones! Your child could trigger DefCon Ultimate! Won't someone think of the children?!
Careful, please. Yes, this study needs to be replicated by other researchers before it can be really acted upon. But rejecting a scientific finding ONLY on the grounds that you don't like the answer is also sad. You plausibly note other sources of cheating. Those should be investigated and ruled out as causes. But if indeed winning does encourage cheating, it is not sad at all to demonstrate that and make people aware of it. That's how we become better aware of our own natures.
The trick is to RTFA. Those two sentences are from different contexts but the summary shoved them together. One is talking about the latest iOS, the other is talking about older versions that aren't end-to-end encrypted.
Oh... and it might not be alien megastructures. It might be human megastructures after we invented time travel. Once we say "well, anything might be possible in the future", we open the door to all sorts of conjecture. There's brainstorming and then there's reasonable suspicion. At this time, alien megastructure is just brainstorming. Keep looking for data!
Sad truth: the messenger matters to how we get the message. We've seen a slew of stories along those lines -- physics tests lower if gender is known, violin auditions need to be anonymous to be judged on sound quality, insufficient peer review given to bad ideas of famous scientists such that death is the only thing that opens up the field to opponents (I can't find my citation on that one, but it was in the news last year), and just the fact that we reject ideas that come from political opponents, regardless of facts. But at the same time, true anonymity makes people behave in a much crueler way (much better cites exist, but this one will do for today). And all those "AC" labels make it hard to carry on a conversation -- I can't tell when the same person replies to me. Also, that name eventually develops a reputation for making good comments, which makes it possible to dredge out of the morass of people who just dump inanity, attacks, or lies -- those get recognized over time. The pseudonym of Slashdot seems to me to be a pretty good compromise. Pick a number to be your screen name, something large and random to avoid any connotations. But give me something to see you as a source of information.
On any given day, 10000 people are encountering the concept for the very first time. The important memes warrant repetition or they are lost to the next generation. https://xkcd.com/1053/
A fifth of the star in a century implies some numbers regarding minimum amount of mass necessary and the energy to move that mass. What I've seen elsewhere says that if there were going to be, say, a Dyson ring or Dyson sphere built that quick, the mass would have to be already in place, meaning the star would already be dimmed. Oh, there are some outside ways to compensate, which is why alien megastructure is still a possibility, but they're pretty extreme energy balances that we think we'd see being expended in such a system -- big increase in heat, for one thing. So alien megastructure is on the table, but considered unlikely, so other options are still being sought. Going direct to alien megastructure at this juncture is no different than going directly to "magic happened" or "some deity decided to change local physics". We must have more evidence to boost the probability of that option before it can be considered likely.
"I just don't feel like shining any more. I'm watching the sentients on my local planet, and they're just mean to each other. It's so sad to watch. I give up. I'm tired of burning hydrogen for these ungrateful whelps. All this fusion for them is giving me iron streaks! Not worth it. I'm going to go spend a few petaseconds focused on some other projects that are less work intensive for me."
RequiredSnark, AC does have one good point -- your opening sentence is an assertion... needs an "I suspect" in there somewhere. She may not be upset at all... she might be coldly calculating after the death of a husband she didn't like in the first place the best way to make money from the bastard's passing. She might be blackmailed by some third party into launching this lawsuit and not really want to do it at all. She might have motivations that have nothing to do with Free Speech, the spread of ISIS, or any of the obvious ramifications of her lawsuit. IF she is acting out of anger and a need for revenge, then the rest of your comments apply.
And, by the way, "the official automobile company of ISIS" is a disturbing thought in some ways... ISIS has been very good at its branding messages. It wouldn't surprise me if they started trying to make such claims. Can you imagine how much damage ISIS could do to a company just by claiming "that's our favorite brand!" Propaganda is a fascinating weapon.
This is why bans on any form of speech are a bad idea. They inevitably end up imbalanced and biased at some point. Even something as simple as "no messages calling for anyone to be killed" are hard to apply to posts like "He should be removed from office by any means necessary." Is that a death threat? Should it be censored by the calls to be killed? These subjective calls are impossible for a neutral third party to apply -- they end up taking sides, and when your communication medium takes sides, then they can be bought or controlled by one side. That's when free speech ends.
I suggest something like an FDA or FCC that is required to give approval for any device sold in the USA that it meets security standards. There's no way most people will recognize the need for a plurality of networks, and even if they do, having a webcam on a separate network still doesn't prevent it from phoning home and sending photos of your house to criminals wanting to see if you're not there right now. Without a vetting agency of some sort, these devices are going to continuously cause problems for the USA and home security. I'm aware of the problem and can't necessarily vet a device that I'm interested in. I'd love some support in this area, be it government or corporate, although regulation certification is one of those areas where I personally would trust a government agency more.
The reason the greater evil wins is because good people failed to vote for the lesser evil. Politics is messy. Grow up.
And that's why some industries have unions. Unions reply to the boss and say, "No, those 30 resumes don't mean shit. Now hire me some damn help or we all go on strike."
It's a balance of power, and in the USA, we have broken a lot of the union authority -- whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but the fact is, we have broken that authority. Putting it back is an option.
Exactly this. People wonder why unions have rules against working outside of your job description or ban people from working extra hours... it's because of this effect. Anyone who volunteers their time for a corporation ends up forcing everyone else to become a volunteer because corporations will hire/promote those who give them the most free time -- emphasis on "free" as a *price* of your time.
And agreeing to work for salary instead of hourly is agreeing to donate free time.
You and the anonymous poster just said exactly the same thing. Go read the post again.
What the AC is saying is that corporations take advantage of the fact that people are willing to work 50 hours for a 40 hour wage. Volunteering in a capitalist system gets monetized and turns, within a few years, into a requirement: management rewards those who volunteer their time for free, which locks people out of the system who don't volunteer, which forces everyone to become a volunteer. This is why unions often include clauses that _ban_ people from working outside of their job description. Volunteerism erodes the free time of everyone who would like to actually have free time. Some people in an industry agreeing to work for salary means everyone who wishes they could get paid hourly and compensated for their overtime can't compete in the employee marketplace, so soon everyone has to work for salary in that industry.
Donating your time to a corporation screws your co-workers. But in the USA, we've been taught to see that as an admirable trait: hard working, dedicated, and selfless.
SuperKendall: Although you are right in absolute numbers -- the tide did raise all boats -- it raised some boat exponentially more than other boats, to such a degree that you now have some people that can essentially ignore periodic economic contractions, while others sink mightily in such times. Xyrus is correct insofar as the amount that the poorest got raised is negligible-to-the-point-of-ignorable compared to the amount the richest got raised. That's pretty much the whole summary of the discoveries compiled by Piketty's book that made such a splash in 2014.
Do the sellers get to determine the price of the sale? Who computes the market value for something that has only one seller and only one buyer? The amount of R&D that went into an idea, the potential revenue from the item's sale, and the startup capital needed to start production ... these are hard things to compute, and I doubt they could be fairly computed.
We could skip a generation and go straight to their kids! You know... the people *raised* by millenials! :-)
Any argument that a whole generation is bunk is pretty ridiculous, IMHO.
At the moment, no string theory that I know of proposes and testable theory, with current or future technology. There's nothing within the model that would let us discriminate at a macro layer whether it is true or not. Same is true with multiverse at the moment -- if another universe were to collide with ours, we might spot its signature, but in the absence of such an event, there's no test that can be run to rule multiverse in or out thus far. If someone comes up with a way to do such a test, then it becomes a theory.
Astrology *was* science at one time. A huge number of early scientists circa 1800s were into astrology. And it has its footprints in a lot of earlier work that became modern science. Astrology made a lot of predictions. Eventually, we discarded it. It is an _invalid_ scientific theory. It is one of the dead ends of science research, but that doesn't invalidate the history.
The theory I've seen going around online is that if it is too heavy to carry, it might be explosive. Things light enough to carry make poor shrapnel. I'm not sure I buy this argument, but there it is.
There's no need for a warrant when *you* call the police. The driver had this feature in the car voluntarily -- you have to pay for it to keep working. This was the driver's choice.
Disconnect from your networks, wireless and wired. Even MS can't update a stand-alone computer. What do you mean, "not a viable option"?! :-)