I was the author of that post, and I wasn't taken in by anything. In fact, I voiced absolutely no opinion regarding the veracity of the report. The simple fact is, the original poster flat out denied the contents of that study without *any* evidence whatsoever. They simply didn't like the numbers, so they ignored it.
In this particular case, were they right? Absolutely. But guess what? It's still confirmation bias, and it's an example of poor thinking.
Because religion is one of the primary drivers of social and cultural development throughout history? Believe in them or not, religion has had a profound effect on the human species, and to ignore it is to leave kids woefully undereducated about the world.
And note, I'm not talking about a Christianity course. I'm talking about a comparative religion course. You name it: Mayan, Egyptian, and Greek polytheism, the Abrahamic religions, the various eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, and Shinto, modern developments like cargo cults and Scientology, etc (and that's a big etc)... It's fascinating stuff, and only a closed-minded git would be opposed to exposing people to the history of religion.
My tax dollars should not be spent on indoctrinating kids into any cults or other magical thinking societies.
Agreed. Fortunately, religious studies classes have nothing to do with indoctrination. It's simply the study of various religions, their historical roots, and so forth. Really, it's just a branch of history class. And it's something I think everyone should take, simply because religion has had such a profound effect on history and culture.
As an aside, while it's sad I need to make this disclaimer: I'm also a hard atheist.
Why not use the same approach that people use to build gated communities? They voluntarily form a Home Owner's Association (HOA), and the HOA builds and maintains the infrastructure.
Uhh... that's government, dumbass. Just because it's community- rather than city-level, doesn't change that fact.
*sigh* Seriously, are all libertarians this deluded?
As an aside, I find it deeply ironic that you link to the wikipedia article which has choice quotes like:
In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[67][113] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[114]
Gotta love confirmation bias... it lets you ignore inconvenient facts...
to continue doing business because they were practically forced (by the government) to give loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back
No, they aren't, and I'm getting fucking sick of this meme being repeated by liars like yourself. The CRA didn't do you what you think it did. Educate yourself.
Yeah, ok. You guys are so logical. I enjoyed the movie a lot, but got choked up at the end when he finally got to see his kids. I wanted to rush home and wake mine up and hug them. Guess I'm sentimental, and wanted it all to be real for him.
That's actually kinda the point, though. The movie philosophy is really rooted in the old idea that reality is in the mind. If you hold to that belief, then it doesn't matter that, in the end, he was asleep, as to him, what he was experiencing is reality.
I certainly think he was, though the filmmakers clearly chose to leave the question open, so I don't believe there is any "right" answer, here. In fact, I see three options:
1) His wife was right that they were still dreaming, and that while she escaped, he remained trapped there, and that the final scene was him finally settling into that dream permanently. After all, he never did have his own totem (it was his wife's, if you recall). So there's no reason at all to believe that the fact it was toppling over in the early parts of the movie actually meant he was experiencing reality.
2) In the drug den, he never actually woke up from testing the sleep drug. If you recall, when he spun the top, it fell off the sink. He never did get a chance to finish the test after being interrupted.
3) At the end, he never actually escaped from limbo.
Personally, I lean toward the first, although that might be a little "Dallas" for some.:)
"When you are writing software that has any need to perform within certain memory or time constraints, or scale to any degree at all, you need to understand your program at that level."
So, *not* the *vast* majority of software written today, then.
Oh please, talk about bullshit. C++ isn't "hard", it's just needlessly complex. For contrast, Haskell is hard, but that difficulty comes with impressive power. C++ is just ridiculously convoluted due to its designed-by-committee pedigree.
But, hey, if programming in C++ boosts your little ego, more power to you. Me, I have more interesting things to do...
Android users come from a more diverse population who are probably not loyal to any one thing but want good 'product' in a smart phone but have no tying factor to the platform.
Let's just say this BS is right. That doesn't change the fac that *80 percent of them* don't believe Android is "a good 'product'". Ignoring how customers feel about competing products, if that isn't an indictment of the Android platform, I don't know what is.
In fact, he nailed it spot on. The GP doesn't like the conclusions of the study, so he just assumes the study or the researchers are wrong. It's an excellent illustration of confirmation bias (or, in this case, its inverse).
People that enamored with reading can usually be spotted BY the copious amounts of margin writing, note taking, highlighting, etc. People that are enamored by having "things" (and not the ideas they contain) are usually the ones that can't stand dog-earing and marking up.
Hint: You can be both.
I love reading my books. But if someone dogeared one of the corners, I'd kill them. Why? Because I enjoy the content *as well as* the physical artifact. And like any other object I own, I want that object respected, and that means not beating the shit out of it.
Hell, at minimum, I spent good money for those things and I want to, like, keep them so I can re-read them later. But the minute someone cracks the spine of a paperback, the clock starts, and it's just a matter of time before those pages start falling out.
Yup, agreed. But for me, that means I can be more selective about the books I decide to buy as physical artifacts.
Though, TBH, I think I might actually prefer reading electronic books... no need for bookmarks, no worries about cracking the spine, no gymnastics trying to get decent lighting (I read on a back-lit PDA), ebooks are lighter and more portable, I don't have to worry about smashing corners or water damage, I can read more comfortably in a wider range of positions (like on my side in bed)... really, the only problem, for me, is reading in sunlight, and that's solvable by combining my PDA with a separate epaper device, or even better, just waiting for a Pixel Qi-equipped device to finally come out.
Nah, for me, paper books are all about nostalgia. I just love the smell and feel of a real book, even if the reading experience itself is, for me, inferior. And I love *having* them. And yes, that's utterly irrational and grossly materialistic.:)
Printed books are only superior in possibly 3 ways
Well, there's a fourth way: I just like them. *shrug*
I like them for the same reason some people pine for the days of vinyl: they're as much collector items, object d'art, as they are content to be read. I *like* having shelves stuffed with books. I like the way they look, the way they smell, the way they feel.
'course, I also read a ton of stuff on my PDA (since I'm too cheap to buy a dedicated e-reader). But I'll never go away from buying real, physical books, as well (I *really* wish publishers would start including a voucher with the hard copies, to buy a cheap electronic version, but that'd be, like, customer-friendly, which is hardly their goal).
It's a tool that let's you easily, selectively block ads right in the browser, rather than having to install and configure a separate piece of software. Given the choice between an in-browser and separate, proxy-based solution, the answer is really very obvious, particularly if you (like me) want to be able to easily enable ads on sites you want to support.
If that's true, a timing attack is useless, as the place where the comparison would fail is random, and certainly doesn't provide information about how to tune the input to get closer to the "correct" answer.
The only thing left for Apple to do to make me happy is to admit that they put a higher priority on making the phone "cool" than on making it functional.
Except that's bullshit.
I'm no Apple fan (in fact, I own no Apple hardware at all), but even to an outsider it's obvious they came up with this antenna design to *improve* reception. That was the whole fucking point: To *make it work better*. And, at least from what I've heard, the approach has generally worked, save for this bridging problem (one that could easily be solved with some kind of insulating, transparent coating over the antenna bands).
Slashdot Mirror
I was the author of that post, and I wasn't taken in by anything. In fact, I voiced absolutely no opinion regarding the veracity of the report. The simple fact is, the original poster flat out denied the contents of that study without *any* evidence whatsoever. They simply didn't like the numbers, so they ignored it.
In this particular case, were they right? Absolutely. But guess what? It's still confirmation bias, and it's an example of poor thinking.
That's when I fire back with. Oh! I see, God is deceptive. How does it feel to believe in a deceiving being?
"But he's just testing my faith! You know, like the story of the Binding of Isaac."
Of course, a typical Christian probably has no idea what the story of the Binding of Isaac actually is, but the point remains...
Why should we have classes on religions?
Because religion is one of the primary drivers of social and cultural development throughout history? Believe in them or not, religion has had a profound effect on the human species, and to ignore it is to leave kids woefully undereducated about the world.
And note, I'm not talking about a Christianity course. I'm talking about a comparative religion course. You name it: Mayan, Egyptian, and Greek polytheism, the Abrahamic religions, the various eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, and Shinto, modern developments like cargo cults and Scientology, etc (and that's a big etc)... It's fascinating stuff, and only a closed-minded git would be opposed to exposing people to the history of religion.
My tax dollars should not be spent on indoctrinating kids into any cults or other magical thinking societies.
Agreed. Fortunately, religious studies classes have nothing to do with indoctrination. It's simply the study of various religions, their historical roots, and so forth. Really, it's just a branch of history class. And it's something I think everyone should take, simply because religion has had such a profound effect on history and culture.
As an aside, while it's sad I need to make this disclaimer: I'm also a hard atheist.
Why not use the same approach that people use to build gated communities? They voluntarily form a Home Owner's Association (HOA), and the HOA builds and maintains the infrastructure.
Uhh... that's government, dumbass. Just because it's community- rather than city-level, doesn't change that fact.
*sigh* Seriously, are all libertarians this deluded?
As an aside, I find it deeply ironic that you link to the wikipedia article which has choice quotes like:
Gotta love confirmation bias... it lets you ignore inconvenient facts...
to continue doing business because they were practically forced (by the government) to give loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back
No, they aren't, and I'm getting fucking sick of this meme being repeated by liars like yourself. The CRA didn't do you what you think it did. Educate yourself.
Yeah, ok. You guys are so logical. I enjoyed the movie a lot, but got choked up at the end when he finally got to see his kids. I wanted to rush home and wake mine up and hug them. Guess I'm sentimental, and wanted it all to be real for him.
That's actually kinda the point, though. The movie philosophy is really rooted in the old idea that reality is in the mind. If you hold to that belief, then it doesn't matter that, in the end, he was asleep, as to him, what he was experiencing is reality.
Because they're supposedly parts of his subconscious/personality, and so are, in their own way, individual characters, involved in individual actions.
I certainly think he was, though the filmmakers clearly chose to leave the question open, so I don't believe there is any "right" answer, here. In fact, I see three options:
1) His wife was right that they were still dreaming, and that while she escaped, he remained trapped there, and that the final scene was him finally settling into that dream permanently. After all, he never did have his own totem (it was his wife's, if you recall). So there's no reason at all to believe that the fact it was toppling over in the early parts of the movie actually meant he was experiencing reality.
2) In the drug den, he never actually woke up from testing the sleep drug. If you recall, when he spun the top, it fell off the sink. He never did get a chance to finish the test after being interrupted.
3) At the end, he never actually escaped from limbo.
Personally, I lean toward the first, although that might be a little "Dallas" for some. :)
"When you are writing software that has any need to perform within certain memory or time constraints, or scale to any degree at all, you need to understand your program at that level."
So, *not* the *vast* majority of software written today, then.
Oh please, talk about bullshit. C++ isn't "hard", it's just needlessly complex. For contrast, Haskell is hard, but that difficulty comes with impressive power. C++ is just ridiculously convoluted due to its designed-by-committee pedigree.
But, hey, if programming in C++ boosts your little ego, more power to you. Me, I have more interesting things to do...
Android users come from a more diverse population who are probably not loyal to any one thing but want good 'product' in a smart phone but have no tying factor to the platform.
Let's just say this BS is right. That doesn't change the fac that *80 percent of them* don't believe Android is "a good 'product'". Ignoring how customers feel about competing products, if that isn't an indictment of the Android platform, I don't know what is.
In fact, he nailed it spot on. The GP doesn't like the conclusions of the study, so he just assumes the study or the researchers are wrong. It's an excellent illustration of confirmation bias (or, in this case, its inverse).
I think you *massively* underestimate a) how lazy your average pot user is, and b) the complexity involved in growing decent quality pot.
I never said anything about ReactOS. Why are you changing the subject?
Some projects are worthwhile, this smells of things like "ReactOS", i.e. something I would never use.
Ah, I see, so unless *you* would use it, it's a "waste of time".
Uhuh.
People that enamored with reading can usually be spotted BY the copious amounts of margin writing, note taking, highlighting, etc. People that are enamored by having "things" (and not the ideas they contain) are usually the ones that can't stand dog-earing and marking up.
Hint: You can be both.
I love reading my books. But if someone dogeared one of the corners, I'd kill them. Why? Because I enjoy the content *as well as* the physical artifact. And like any other object I own, I want that object respected, and that means not beating the shit out of it.
Hell, at minimum, I spent good money for those things and I want to, like, keep them so I can re-read them later. But the minute someone cracks the spine of a paperback, the clock starts, and it's just a matter of time before those pages start falling out.
Yup, agreed. But for me, that means I can be more selective about the books I decide to buy as physical artifacts.
Though, TBH, I think I might actually prefer reading electronic books... no need for bookmarks, no worries about cracking the spine, no gymnastics trying to get decent lighting (I read on a back-lit PDA), ebooks are lighter and more portable, I don't have to worry about smashing corners or water damage, I can read more comfortably in a wider range of positions (like on my side in bed)... really, the only problem, for me, is reading in sunlight, and that's solvable by combining my PDA with a separate epaper device, or even better, just waiting for a Pixel Qi-equipped device to finally come out.
Nah, for me, paper books are all about nostalgia. I just love the smell and feel of a real book, even if the reading experience itself is, for me, inferior. And I love *having* them. And yes, that's utterly irrational and grossly materialistic. :)
Printed books are only superior in possibly 3 ways
Well, there's a fourth way: I just like them. *shrug*
I like them for the same reason some people pine for the days of vinyl: they're as much collector items, object d'art, as they are content to be read. I *like* having shelves stuffed with books. I like the way they look, the way they smell, the way they feel.
'course, I also read a ton of stuff on my PDA (since I'm too cheap to buy a dedicated e-reader). But I'll never go away from buying real, physical books, as well (I *really* wish publishers would start including a voucher with the hard copies, to buy a cheap electronic version, but that'd be, like, customer-friendly, which is hardly their goal).
It's a tool that let's you easily, selectively block ads right in the browser, rather than having to install and configure a separate piece of software. Given the choice between an in-browser and separate, proxy-based solution, the answer is really very obvious, particularly if you (like me) want to be able to easily enable ads on sites you want to support.
Huh? What does geographic area have to do with the problem of highly variable power output of wind turbines?
Here's a thought: quit trolling Slashdot and try it out yourself.
If that's true, a timing attack is useless, as the place where the comparison would fail is random, and certainly doesn't provide information about how to tune the input to get closer to the "correct" answer.
The only thing left for Apple to do to make me happy is to admit that they put a higher priority on making the phone "cool" than on making it functional.
Except that's bullshit.
I'm no Apple fan (in fact, I own no Apple hardware at all), but even to an outsider it's obvious they came up with this antenna design to *improve* reception. That was the whole fucking point: To *make it work better*. And, at least from what I've heard, the approach has generally worked, save for this bridging problem (one that could easily be solved with some kind of insulating, transparent coating over the antenna bands).