Why not just order that the criminals are no longer protected by the law of gravity? So they'll just float away, up into space. Or down, them being in Australia and all.
Then, they could get rid of those pesky laws of thermodynamics and finally allow Australia to harness the power of all those perpetual motion machines people keep inventing.
That's not fair. I often think of the economy. Particularly while staring at bathroom tiles while taking a shit. Like how for economy-priced tiles... they're really not bad.
Why anyone would bother? I don't know... that's up to their agenda and mental issues. Then again, I've seen people go into hardcore agenda pushing mode in comments read by at best dozens of people. Hell, people will go all "I am the king toad of this pond" on forums where MEMBERSHIP numbers are in dozens.
On the other hand... Slashdot does reach eyeballs of many in tech community AND... if one is looking for a way to pad one's ego - it's clocking in at over 5 million accounts now. Back when DICE took over, it was clocking it at "more than 5,300 comments daily and 3.7 million unique visitors each month." If one wants to present themselves or their agenda as influential and respected... Presenting oneself as keeping a high prestige score among 5 million people or millions of "unique visitors" or being the "most insightful" among hundreds of thousand of comments each month... those aren't bad numbers. I live in a country smaller than that with voter turnout much like the number of comments made on Slashdot each month.
That's was actually said by "Paul Root Wolpe, director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University in Atlanta" BS-ing about maybetech in that "60 minutes" story back in 2009.
But if it would be possible to beam light through the skull, without damaging the tissue (which is something a few minutes in the sunlight will do) AND catch the light which bounces back... Forget telepathy. That's X-ray vision. See into other peoples homes and bodies. Without a funny helmet. Or dangerous radiation.
In reality... half of it is computer guessing which one of the ten pre-calibrated images the subject is being shown - while the other half is just bullshit mixed with wishful thinking. Then she "expanded" on that.
For now, it's impossible to force someone to have his or her brain scanned, because the subject has to lie still and cooperate, but that could change.
"There are some other technologies that are being developed that may be able to be used covertly and even remotely. So, for example, they're trying to develop now a beam of light that would be projected onto your forehead. It would go a couple of millimeters into your frontal cortex, and then receptors would get the reflection of that light. And there's some studies that suggest that we could use that as a lie detection device," Wolpe said.
If you look at it closely, that paragraph consists of nothing but woulda-couldas and maybes. Sprinkled with a weasel word or two.
Would people with issues and or agendas go out of their way to present themselves and their ideas as influential and beloved by masses of people willing to spend "prestige currency" on them at the expense of others? Or simply in order to keep an account in "positive karma"? Really? You have to ask about that? As if it is something... well... I was gonna say unimaginable but unusual would be a more appropriate term.
People will whore for Facebook "likes" and open up fake accounts to "salt" the praise of themselves. If anything, Slashdot mod points are a more valuable (definitely more rare and more perishable) prestige currency. Also, Slashdot crowd is quite capable of automating the task of harvesting it. Hell... We're at over 4 million accounts. Setting a very conservative guesstimate of skill, will and lunacy and/or agenda needed at one in a million - that's at least 4 people doing it. Remember APK?
Believing has nothing to do with it. If it is technically possible, someone is already doing it. Is olloonie up there capable of doing that? I doubt it. He is a creature of low skill and intelligence. But he may have sucked some cocks to pay someone to set that up for him.
As you clearly well know, you just need a wide net of plenty of active, positive karma accounts, to catch those randomly distributed mod-points. And at 23 daily posts (in the last 24 hours, so far) you clearly have plenty of time on your hands, between therapy sessions, to maintain your mod-point farm.
And even if one did need positive mods, I'm sure someone like you could find the time to run two concurrent farms - each pumping up the other with mod-points. If anything, that'd be a more certain way to accrue mod-points. Though, one would have to restrain from down-modding. At first. Gotta pump them 1s to 2s, 2s to 3s hoping them 3s will grow into 4s and 5s on their own by pure inertia and bandwagoning of crowds, after peeking their heads up over the rest of the field...
And complimented or not, you're still a right wing racist nutcase, loonie.
First study is bursting with methodology flaws. I doubt that it was even published. Aaaaand I was right. It was heavily edited before publishing. He dropped the prostitute scenario in the first experiment (the one actually showing more "empathy" for the placebo group).
In the video scenario... well... Apparently it's not acetaminophen but watching David Lynch that's causing the effect. Cause while the control group, which watches only cartoons, has minimal effects, well covered by error bars for both placebo and acetaminophen - those in David Lynch watching group want to punish people more for vandalism after a sports game. BUT... those on acetaminophen in Lynch group have IDENTICAL results as those in the cartoon group - taking placebo. Which, again, is barely different from those in cartoon group - taking acetaminophen.
In short... all he's "proven" is that watching David Lynch's Rabbits makes you want to punch people.
The other linked study has laughable effects and tiny groups - 30 and 32 participants in first experiment, 10 and 15 in the second. That's not a study. That's pretend work. Plus their methodology was also flawed, up and down the wazoo.
Giving people something which reduces pain and inflammation, thus reducing stress levels... that's NOT lower emotional pain. That's measuring lower irritation over time.
And even that is by an NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT. Differences between groups increasing from -0.14 to -0.38. On average. Over 21 days. FOR THE acetaminophen group. Which also started off with a lower "hurt feelings" score than the placebo group.
WHILE the placebo group (though study also claims no change - in the slope) kept getting more "hurt feelings". TOUGH there was no standardized stimuli to cause the daily "hurt feelings". For either group. Both groups just "took acetaminophen or placebo in pill form each day for 3 weeks and reported their hurt feelings daily". Still... placebo crowd kept getting more "hurt feelings".
And it's even worse when you look at actual numbers. Cause acetaminophen group went from 2.35 average daily "hurt feelings" to about 2.17 - while placebo group, went from about 2.45something to about 2.55, average daily "hurt feelings". Their reported slopes were 0.0035 and -0.0081 for placebo and acetaminophen groups, respectively. For 30 people. Over 21 days. Reporting completely subjectively determined changes in their "hurt feelings" - in values measured in percentiles of percentiles. On a scale that goes from at least 2 to at least 3 (as shown on the graph). We are not shown or told actual scale which participants used to measure their "hurt feelings". There's no scale which starts at 2. Particularly not one which measures negative values as well. Still... Everyone started around 2.5... and ended around 2.5.
That's a faulty study. Fraudulent even.
TLDR:
Tylenol has been indicated to reduce emotional pain as well as physical pain,
Tell that to your appendix. And unwanted body hair. Or wanted but no longer there hair. Or your wisdom teeth.
But besides that... even at a glance (which is far more than it should be given) data measured in the study, along with their p-values, are of the kind which will clearly disappear in a larger group with proper controls. They get median changes in values from -0.22 for acetaminophen to +0.22 for placebo groups - on a scale of -4 to +4. For physical pain. -0.19 and +0.19 for social pain. That's the result you get when you have a few people who are uncomfortable with having a 0 effect.
Difference of 0.44 and 0.38 on a scale of 0 to 8. Those are reported differences of about 5% on a scale where you grade in increments of 12.5%.
How did THEY interpret that?
As predicted, acetaminophen reduced perceived pain and personal distress when reading scenarios about people in both physical and social pain; the effect of acetaminophen on perceived social pain was marginally significant.
It would be if you were a right wing racist lunatic like the olloonie up there. You just have to think like a paranoid lunatic and it all makes perfect sense.
You know he has dozens of accounts, farming for mod points, just so he could get himself back up from those downmods and create an illusion of wider consent to his lunacy?
Besides that hardly qualifying as art (it is barely writing) - you should pick you examples better.
That thing started as Twilight fan fiction. Literally written cause someone HAD to have that fantasy pushed out.
"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"
Except that, dictionary-like, definition is crap. On par with "the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh". Clearly, you can tell right away that it is defining an orange, right.
Mere expression is not enough. Nor is creative skill enough. Plopping out babies is a human creative skill. But masturbation is BOTH creative skill and application of imagination. Jerking off into a cup - pure art. By definition. And let's not even get into signing your name in the snow with piss. AAAAAAARRRRRRTTTTT!!!!
Art is both a process and the product of an attempt to encapsulate and transfer human experience through a medium. Great art succeeds in that attempt.
You feel FOR other's pain. You get an emotional reaction AS IF you're being hurt - minus the pain. And even that is if you're REALLY susceptible to empathy. Most cases you just feel a bit sad.
Otherwise, doctors in hospitals would be dead from shock in a few days from all the pain they'd empathize with. Similarly, we don't get carted out of theaters on a stretcher after watching a comedy surrounded by other people and their happiness.
But did the machine like them? Maybe machine hated them. Maybe it was just clearing its nozzles.
The same emotional response must exist on both sides of the emotional exchange. Artist must feel the emotions he/she encapsulates in the work of art - and the audience must feel the same emotions when experiencing the artwork.
And no... You can't go "Well... MAYBE the machine felt it..." That would be just reading-in meaning into meaningless patterns, with a large dose of anthropomorphizing of machines.
However we define art, an art piece reflects the inside world of the person who made it. It gives us the observers a glimpse into another psyche different from our own and that's fascinating, it's almost a form of telepathy. Here, there's no psyche, no inside world to look at, and so it's uninteresting. It's just some graphics.
Yes.
I think most people would not be interesting in looking at it for any length of time.
No.
Human minds have a... not so much a need but a necessary operating function to attach meaning to things. Plenty of humans LOVE gazing into essentially meaningless patterns of shapes and colors and finding in them something they "recognize".
It's not art... but it may be psychologically pleasing. Like a puzzle you can solve over and over.
Neither of those is art. Both the child and the gorilla are just slapping paint on canvas while matching patterns.
But if you DESIGN a paint-by-numbers coloring book which will induce your emotions about the experience depicted in the drawing, in the children who would be doing the coloring... That'd make you a pretty darn good child psychologist, at the very least. Probably a great artist as well. But you'd have to do more than just drawing scary pictures which frighten the little children. A fuckin clown can induce THAT emotion in kids.
As for "well socialized animals"... Try turning your argument around. Make some "cow art". Higher emotional beings we are... we must be able to think and emote like a cow, right? Or like a gorilla.
So... where's all the animal pacifying art? I'm sure veterinarians could use some. Or farmers.
Uh... no. Artist creates because he (or she) MUST create. Because there is a need for expression.
Money is just one way we've figured out for dealing with our own response to such expression. Putting a price tag on it. It helps when dealing with unimaginative people. Just think of all the times you heard about some scientific discovery, from the Moon Landing to penicillin, described in dollar values. Cause some people can't stretch their minds grasp the mindbogglingly huge impact of such discoveries. But give them a number... THAT they can place on some internal value line.
BTW... that what you LIKE and which "makes sense" to you in those images... that's your pattern recognition acting up. It means you're not a robot.
With the exception of birdsong. It's intended to provoke an emotional response in the (bird) listener, and succeeds. That's one of the definitions of art.
That's provocation of A response... not THE response which the original bird is "feeling".
We humans call that talking. Exchange of information. Through a medium. But that's it. And sure... listening to someone talk CAN provoke an emotional response - but if it is NOT the intended response AND if it's not matching the attempted emotional response... it's not art. Think of an actor whose tragic portrayal of a sad story becomes a farce and makes the audience laugh instead of crying.
It needs to create "art" based on personal emotional experience AND induce such emotional experience in human audience.
Otherwise... it's just a drawing, photo, sculpture, video... but not art. Just like those "paintings" by monkeys and elephants are not art but paint slapped on canvas. Or like how birdsong is not art, an anthill is not architecture and dogs urine on the wall is not graffiti.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to hack the voting system 150000 times and it's a statistic...
Try to do it once and you're likely a Trump voter.
It's kinda connected.
What Tesla is doing with battery and solar panel production will make it more affordable to "do it yourself".
People already are doing it themselves using Tesla and other gear.
Oh come on... Think bigger.
Why not just order that the criminals are no longer protected by the law of gravity?
So they'll just float away, up into space. Or down, them being in Australia and all.
Then, they could get rid of those pesky laws of thermodynamics and finally allow Australia to harness the power of all those perpetual motion machines people keep inventing.
That's not fair. I often think of the economy.
Particularly while staring at bathroom tiles while taking a shit. Like how for economy-priced tiles... they're really not bad.
Why anyone would bother? I don't know... that's up to their agenda and mental issues.
Then again, I've seen people go into hardcore agenda pushing mode in comments read by at best dozens of people.
Hell, people will go all "I am the king toad of this pond" on forums where MEMBERSHIP numbers are in dozens.
On the other hand... Slashdot does reach eyeballs of many in tech community AND... if one is looking for a way to pad one's ego - it's clocking in at over 5 million accounts now.
Back when DICE took over, it was clocking it at "more than 5,300 comments daily and 3.7 million unique visitors each month."
If one wants to present themselves or their agenda as influential and respected...
Presenting oneself as keeping a high prestige score among 5 million people or millions of "unique visitors" or being the "most insightful" among hundreds of thousand of comments each month... those aren't bad numbers.
I live in a country smaller than that with voter turnout much like the number of comments made on Slashdot each month.
Ha! The joke's on you! They are all about to be replaced with robot-trucks anyway.
Also, I'm self-sufficient in the clogging department, thank you very much.
I make my own pizza you insensitive clod.
Images of 1980s Amanda Pays were found to be causing dangerous breakdowns in worker productivity.
I'm waiting for an article about a new form of SWATting where the victims' TV calls police to storm their home and shoot their dog(s) and family.
That's was actually said by "Paul Root Wolpe, director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University in Atlanta" BS-ing about maybetech in that "60 minutes" story back in 2009.
Thing is, light DOES penetrate our skulls... enough to influence our moods.
But if it would be possible to beam light through the skull, without damaging the tissue (which is something a few minutes in the sunlight will do) AND catch the light which bounces back...
Forget telepathy. That's X-ray vision. See into other peoples homes and bodies. Without a funny helmet. Or dangerous radiation.
She basically repeated what she saw on an episode of "60 minutes" linked in the thought identification article on Wikipedia.
In reality... half of it is computer guessing which one of the ten pre-calibrated images the subject is being shown - while the other half is just bullshit mixed with wishful thinking.
Then she "expanded" on that.
For now, it's impossible to force someone to have his or her brain scanned, because the subject has to lie still and cooperate, but that could change.
"There are some other technologies that are being developed that may be able to be used covertly and even remotely.
So, for example, they're trying to develop now a beam of light that would be projected onto your forehead.
It would go a couple of millimeters into your frontal cortex, and then receptors would get the reflection of that light.
And there's some studies that suggest that we could use that as a lie detection device," Wolpe said.
If you look at it closely, that paragraph consists of nothing but woulda-couldas and maybes.
Sprinkled with a weasel word or two.
Would people with issues and or agendas go out of their way to present themselves and their ideas as influential and beloved by masses of people willing to spend "prestige currency" on them at the expense of others?
Or simply in order to keep an account in "positive karma"?
Really? You have to ask about that?
As if it is something... well... I was gonna say unimaginable but unusual would be a more appropriate term.
People will whore for Facebook "likes" and open up fake accounts to "salt" the praise of themselves.
If anything, Slashdot mod points are a more valuable (definitely more rare and more perishable) prestige currency.
Also, Slashdot crowd is quite capable of automating the task of harvesting it.
Hell... We're at over 4 million accounts. Setting a very conservative guesstimate of skill, will and lunacy and/or agenda needed at one in a million - that's at least 4 people doing it.
Remember APK?
Believing has nothing to do with it. If it is technically possible, someone is already doing it.
Is olloonie up there capable of doing that? I doubt it. He is a creature of low skill and intelligence.
But he may have sucked some cocks to pay someone to set that up for him.
As you clearly well know, you just need a wide net of plenty of active, positive karma accounts, to catch those randomly distributed mod-points.
And at 23 daily posts (in the last 24 hours, so far) you clearly have plenty of time on your hands, between therapy sessions, to maintain your mod-point farm.
And even if one did need positive mods, I'm sure someone like you could find the time to run two concurrent farms - each pumping up the other with mod-points.
If anything, that'd be a more certain way to accrue mod-points.
Though, one would have to restrain from down-modding. At first.
Gotta pump them 1s to 2s, 2s to 3s hoping them 3s will grow into 4s and 5s on their own by pure inertia and bandwagoning of crowds, after peeking their heads up over the rest of the field...
And complimented or not, you're still a right wing racist nutcase, loonie.
First study is bursting with methodology flaws. I doubt that it was even published.
Aaaaand I was right. It was heavily edited before publishing.
He dropped the prostitute scenario in the first experiment (the one actually showing more "empathy" for the placebo group).
In the video scenario... well...
Apparently it's not acetaminophen but watching David Lynch that's causing the effect.
Cause while the control group, which watches only cartoons, has minimal effects, well covered by error bars for both placebo and acetaminophen - those in David Lynch watching group want to punish people more for vandalism after a sports game.
BUT... those on acetaminophen in Lynch group have IDENTICAL results as those in the cartoon group - taking placebo.
Which, again, is barely different from those in cartoon group - taking acetaminophen.
In short... all he's "proven" is that watching David Lynch's Rabbits makes you want to punch people.
The other linked study has laughable effects and tiny groups - 30 and 32 participants in first experiment, 10 and 15 in the second.
That's not a study. That's pretend work.
Plus their methodology was also flawed, up and down the wazoo.
Giving people something which reduces pain and inflammation, thus reducing stress levels... that's NOT lower emotional pain. That's measuring lower irritation over time.
And even that is by an NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT.
Differences between groups increasing from -0.14 to -0.38. On average. Over 21 days. FOR THE acetaminophen group.
Which also started off with a lower "hurt feelings" score than the placebo group.
WHILE the placebo group (though study also claims no change - in the slope) kept getting more "hurt feelings".
TOUGH there was no standardized stimuli to cause the daily "hurt feelings". For either group.
Both groups just "took acetaminophen or placebo in pill form each day for 3 weeks and reported their hurt feelings daily".
Still... placebo crowd kept getting more "hurt feelings".
And it's even worse when you look at actual numbers.
Cause acetaminophen group went from 2.35 average daily "hurt feelings" to about 2.17 - while placebo group, went from about 2.45something to about 2.55, average daily "hurt feelings".
Their reported slopes were 0.0035 and -0.0081 for placebo and acetaminophen groups, respectively.
For 30 people.
Over 21 days.
Reporting completely subjectively determined changes in their "hurt feelings" - in values measured in percentiles of percentiles.
On a scale that goes from at least 2 to at least 3 (as shown on the graph). We are not shown or told actual scale which participants used to measure their "hurt feelings".
There's no scale which starts at 2. Particularly not one which measures negative values as well.
Still... Everyone started around 2.5... and ended around 2.5.
That's a faulty study. Fraudulent even.
TLDR:
Tylenol has been indicated to reduce emotional pain as well as physical pain,
Nope.
Tell that to your appendix. And unwanted body hair. Or wanted but no longer there hair. Or your wisdom teeth.
But besides that... even at a glance (which is far more than it should be given) data measured in the study, along with their p-values, are of the kind which will clearly disappear in a larger group with proper controls.
They get median changes in values from -0.22 for acetaminophen to +0.22 for placebo groups - on a scale of -4 to +4. For physical pain.
-0.19 and +0.19 for social pain.
That's the result you get when you have a few people who are uncomfortable with having a 0 effect.
Difference of 0.44 and 0.38 on a scale of 0 to 8.
Those are reported differences of about 5% on a scale where you grade in increments of 12.5%.
How did THEY interpret that?
As predicted, acetaminophen reduced perceived pain and personal distress when reading scenarios about people in both physical and social pain; the effect of acetaminophen on perceived social pain was marginally significant.
Well color me biased, observer...
It probably does feel like victory. At least a little bit.
It would be if you were a right wing racist lunatic like the olloonie up there.
You just have to think like a paranoid lunatic and it all makes perfect sense.
You know he has dozens of accounts, farming for mod points, just so he could get himself back up from those downmods and create an illusion of wider consent to his lunacy?
Besides that hardly qualifying as art (it is barely writing) - you should pick you examples better.
That thing started as Twilight fan fiction.
Literally written cause someone HAD to have that fantasy pushed out.
"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"
Except that, dictionary-like, definition is crap.
On par with "the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh".
Clearly, you can tell right away that it is defining an orange, right.
Mere expression is not enough. Nor is creative skill enough.
Plopping out babies is a human creative skill. But masturbation is BOTH creative skill and application of imagination.
Jerking off into a cup - pure art. By definition.
And let's not even get into signing your name in the snow with piss. AAAAAAARRRRRRTTTTT!!!!
Art is both a process and the product of an attempt to encapsulate and transfer human experience through a medium.
Great art succeeds in that attempt.
You feel FOR other's pain.
You get an emotional reaction AS IF you're being hurt - minus the pain.
And even that is if you're REALLY susceptible to empathy. Most cases you just feel a bit sad.
Otherwise, doctors in hospitals would be dead from shock in a few days from all the pain they'd empathize with.
Similarly, we don't get carted out of theaters on a stretcher after watching a comedy surrounded by other people and their happiness.
It's a psychological study.
It's a safe bet that it is either bullshit or overblown bullshit.
But did the machine like them?
Maybe machine hated them. Maybe it was just clearing its nozzles.
The same emotional response must exist on both sides of the emotional exchange.
Artist must feel the emotions he/she encapsulates in the work of art - and the audience must feel the same emotions when experiencing the artwork.
And no... You can't go "Well... MAYBE the machine felt it..."
That would be just reading-in meaning into meaningless patterns, with a large dose of anthropomorphizing of machines.
However we define art, an art piece reflects the inside world of the person who made it. It gives us the observers a glimpse into another psyche different from our own and that's fascinating, it's almost a form of telepathy. Here, there's no psyche, no inside world to look at, and so it's uninteresting. It's just some graphics.
Yes.
I think most people would not be interesting in looking at it for any length of time.
No.
Human minds have a... not so much a need but a necessary operating function to attach meaning to things.
Plenty of humans LOVE gazing into essentially meaningless patterns of shapes and colors and finding in them something they "recognize".
It's not art... but it may be psychologically pleasing. Like a puzzle you can solve over and over.
Neither of those is art. Both the child and the gorilla are just slapping paint on canvas while matching patterns.
But if you DESIGN a paint-by-numbers coloring book which will induce your emotions about the experience depicted in the drawing, in the children who would be doing the coloring...
That'd make you a pretty darn good child psychologist, at the very least. Probably a great artist as well.
But you'd have to do more than just drawing scary pictures which frighten the little children. A fuckin clown can induce THAT emotion in kids.
As for "well socialized animals"...
Try turning your argument around. Make some "cow art".
Higher emotional beings we are... we must be able to think and emote like a cow, right?
Or like a gorilla.
So... where's all the animal pacifying art? I'm sure veterinarians could use some. Or farmers.
Uh... no.
Artist creates because he (or she) MUST create. Because there is a need for expression.
Money is just one way we've figured out for dealing with our own response to such expression. Putting a price tag on it.
It helps when dealing with unimaginative people. Just think of all the times you heard about some scientific discovery, from the Moon Landing to penicillin, described in dollar values.
Cause some people can't stretch their minds grasp the mindbogglingly huge impact of such discoveries. But give them a number... THAT they can place on some internal value line.
BTW... that what you LIKE and which "makes sense" to you in those images... that's your pattern recognition acting up.
It means you're not a robot.
With the exception of birdsong. It's intended to provoke an emotional response in the (bird) listener, and succeeds. That's one of the definitions of art.
That's provocation of A response... not THE response which the original bird is "feeling".
We humans call that talking. Exchange of information. Through a medium. But that's it.
And sure... listening to someone talk CAN provoke an emotional response - but if it is NOT the intended response AND if it's not matching the attempted emotional response... it's not art.
Think of an actor whose tragic portrayal of a sad story becomes a farce and makes the audience laugh instead of crying.
It needs to create "art" based on personal emotional experience AND induce such emotional experience in human audience.
Otherwise... it's just a drawing, photo, sculpture, video... but not art.
Just like those "paintings" by monkeys and elephants are not art but paint slapped on canvas.
Or like how birdsong is not art, an anthill is not architecture and dogs urine on the wall is not graffiti.