Leaving out all philosophical idealism, I see vandalism from some registered users. Registration won't stop the assholes.
But their accounts are much easier to ban. Especially if new account holders are not permitted to edit for a period of time. It wouldn't be perfect, of course. Vandals could still set up many accounts, let them sit for a few months until they editing is allowed then use them until they get shut down. But it would make vandalism harder and more tedious. Probably enough to make a fair number of the vandals find an easier target.
The downside, of course, is that anything that makes it harder for vandals also makes it harder for legitimate but casual contributors. I don't know if the negative effect of that would outweigh the reduction in vandalism.
Because that organisation may not have much in the way of Linux knowledgefor the setup/management/programming of the HPC cluster in-house while they have a wealth of MS experience.
Haven't worked for many big retailers, I see. Their infrastructure tends quite heterogeneous. You mentioned Wal-mart, for example. They have Linux all over the place.
I grant that your scenario isn't impossible, but it's at least quite rare.
Fear itself is not wrong, only what stupid people fear is wrong. I have fears in my life, and I'm glad I do. It keeps me alive, it even motivates me.
Absolutely. Fear guides our actions in many ways, and generally for the better. Applied properly, it can help us make quick decisions with sufficient accuracy in situations where there simply isn't time to apply rational analysis. The decisions aren't always as good as rational decisions would be, but they're generally not too far off, and often doing nothing is even worse than doing something that isn't quite right.
For example, I teach concealed weapon permit courses, and one of the major challenges faced by any rational, law-abiding person who decides to carry a deadly weapon is to learn how to decide under what circumstances they should use it. In the course I cover the ins and outs of the law, but there's no way anyone can apply that knowledge in the split second available during a possibly-deadly encounter. It's too complex and too abstract.
So in addition to the law, I teach people to train themselves to use their fear, to assume that if they draw and fire their gun they will go to prison for it, and so they should only use it in circumstances where they fear the consequences of not shooting even more than that. This "balance of opposing fears" is something that can be done on an emotional level -- with "the gut" --, and it can be done very quickly. Not to mention the fact that the standard of justification in the law is based on the presence of "reasonable fear", so if you're a reasonable person and you have a great fear, then you should be legally justified when the DA and/or jury gets around to weighing your actions against the minutiae of the law.
Of course, some people are more afraid of prison than of dying, so it might not be a good standard for them.
(Aside: This being slashdot, I know I'm going to get some responses saying that anyone who wants to carry a gun already has a broken "fear sense", but that's simply untrue. I have taught many, many people and the only ones I've met who decide to carry out of a sense of fear really DO have reason to fear -- mostly women with dangerous and unstable exes. Mostly, people who decide to carry do it more out of a sense of determination that they do not want to be a victim. Not that they think they're likely to be victims, but they see it as a reasonable precaution, much like having a fire extinguisher in their car and house.)
I use either dd or tar, depending on the situation.
dd is faster if the disk is close to full -- no seeking is required, so the copy runs at the maximum rate the system can sustain. Of course, if there's a lot of empty space dd wastes time copying unused bits, and if the partition structure is complex and the last partition isn't the one that needs to grow, then dd just won't work well.
In reality a 5 year old kernel may well not support the new hardware.
If you're actually running a five year-old kernel, you have another problem -- security. The point of RHEL's long-term support is that you get updates and fixes, but they don't break your apps.
In any case, for server-type hardware this is rarely an issue. Sometimes new network cards or disk controllers come out that an old kernel might not have support for, but it's usually very easy to either (a) avoid buying such hardware or (b) add the necessary drivers. Neither option should affect your application functionality.
What does that have to do with the OS install? You just use dd to copy the file system to the new drive and your new hardware is up and running with no need to worry about getting the software config right.
Yeah, reading some more after my post, I came to that conclusion. Though I suppose it's always possible to slap a network proxy API on top. Not being networkable itself will reduce the value of native Wayland apps, vs X11 apps.
I don't know that, and I think most of the people who do "know" that don't really have a clue what they're talking about.
X isn't perfect, but it's darned good. The bottom-level display protocol is weird and quirky, but it's proven to be extremely flexible and extensible. Modern X servers have excellent performance while retaining all of the network transparency and flexibility from the original design.
That said, I think Wayland may actually be a worthy successor. It retains the basic client/server architecture which is really important, but replaces the quirky X protocol with a new (and, hopefully, cleaner) protocol. It provides a way to retain X compatibility by making the X server a Wayland client. It brings the compositor, which is a somewhat-klunky add-on to X into the core of the display server where it belongs, given that compositing is clearly the best way to combine elements into a whole display.
As long as Wayland's protocol is sufficiently extensible to allow future improvements in the way we do graphical environments, the way X's protocol has proven to be, I think it might be an excellent idea. That, really, is my biggest concern. The X protocol has proven to be extremely extensible and I worry that a new technology might not have that same flexibility. We don't know what the future will bring and we don't want to be painted into a corner where massive rework is required to adopt a new approach. Of course, that could happen with X as well -- but so far the X protocol has proven to be remarkably adaptable.
Even that doesn't really worry me, though. I expect that the Wayland team has absorbed the lessons of X's excellence and is endeavoring to retain them in the new design.
Forwarding X isn't really an ideal way to do things anymore.
VNC/RDP and other protocalls are MUCH faster then using X
Bicycling isn't really an ideal way to do things any more. Automobiles are much faster than bicycles.
Okay, so not a perfect analogy, but you get the point. VNC/RDP can't forward just a remote application, they have to bring the whole desktop. They can't integrate cut and paste as seamlessly as forwarded X. They don't allow your local window manager to choose where things are placed, how they're moved, etc.
There are plenty of cases where VNC/RDP make perfect sense and forwarded X connections do not. There are also plenty of cases where the reverse is true. Different tools for different situations.
People have come to rely on an X server, specifically, being available to them.
I had the same thought, but after looking at the Wayland architecture I'm less concerned. Here's a relevant quote from the Wayland architecture pages:
Wayland is a complete window system in itself, but even so, if we're migrating away from X, it makes sense to have a good backwards compatibility story. With a few changes, the Xorg server can be modified to use wayland input devices for input and forward either the root window or individual top-level windows as wayland surfaces. The server still runs the same 2D driver with the same acceleration code as it does when it runs natively, the main difference is that wayland handles presentation of the windows instead of KMS.
So it sounds like application developers will have a choice of using the Wayland window system directly, or using the X protocol to talk to an X server which uses Wayland to display its output. In practice, of course, no one will do either. Application developers use toolkits like Qt, GTK, wx, etc., so what will probably happen is that the toolkits will choose either the X or the Wayland protocol, perhaps dynamically based on the available options.
I was pretty sure when I went to look at the Wayland stuff that this is a bad idea. After reading about it a bit, though, I'm not so sure. Wayland is designed around the notion of compositor-based display, which is clearly where everything is now or is going soon, while the compositor is a somewhat-klunky add-on to an X server. If Wayland can retain X's network transparency, streamline and simplify the graphics architecture, provide a cleaner and less...bizarre... protocol, and also allow native X apps to continue running without issue and to be gradually ported from the X protocol to the Wayland protocol as it becomes convenient... I think it may be a very good idea indeed.
How could they not know something was wrong when they find the wrong flag on the flagpole?
The original article says that they raised the Nicaraguan flag, but not that they took down a Costa Rican flag. I'm not sure where that "information" came from.
So Jefferson proposed a proportional representation approach. Interesting.
I'd have been really surprised if Jefferson had pointed out the mathematical problems with the plurality system since the math to analyze it wasn't invented/discovered until about 150 years later.
I'm sitting this one out, and possibly 2012 as well. Voting for the guy or gal that lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar. The very nature of politics nowadays automatically means someone with enough clout to run for election is unfit to serve...
Here's a better option for 2012: Pick a party and get involved.
The party platforms aren't dictated top-down, they're built bottom-up. And the bottom layer is surprisingly small. Most local caucuses are attended by a bare handful of people, from whom one is selected to go to the state caucus. If you can get a handful of people who think your way to attend most of those local caucus meetings, you can take over control of the state-level party. If you can do that in a couple of dozen states, you've taken control of the national party. "Taken control" is a bit too strong, perhaps, but only a bit.
Simply sitting out accomplishes nothing. It's not a way to protest, even if it feels that way. No one will notice.
Voting for third parties also accomplishes nothing. The major parties might notice if the effect is large enough, but since the major result of third-party "success" is to give the election away to the the major party who is ideologically furthest from the third party, the effect isn't going to be what you want. A third-party vote is either a do-nothing vote or a vote for the greater of two evils.
The two major parties are so thoroughly established in this country, and the power of party voting is so overwhelming, that trying to do anything significant outside of those parties is just a waste of effort -- when it's not actually counterproductive. Instead, pick the party that is closest to your beliefs and get involved, pushing it to move closer to what you want.
Then each individual loss will have twice the logistical impact.
No, each loss will have exactly the same logistical impact. The number of convoys is halved because demand is halved. The net effect is that losing one convoy results in the same number of hours without AC (assuming no storage capacity and spare delivery capacity, which is certainly not the case).
Also, arguably, twice the terror impact on the folks in the flak jackets, which has all kinds of interesting effect from increased PTSD to increased civilian casualties (itchy trigger finger when terrified)
Again, no. Under this model (and I'm not commenting on how realistic the model is, just on your erroneous inferences from it), each convoy has roughly the same probability of being attacked/destroyed. No great change in impact on the folks in the flak jackets.
Except, of course, for greater opportunity to rotate the personnel, reducing each individual's time in danger, and greater spare capacity for convoy escorts, increasing convoy firepower and convoy safety.
It is still funny to point and laugh, at least a little.
The VW Beetle used a horizontally-opposed engine, which is not the same thing as an opposed-piston engine. In an opposed-piston engine, each cylinder is double-ended, with a piston at each end and no head. A horizontally-opposed engine uses ordinary single-ended cylinders with a head and one piston.
No, I don't know anything about this stuff. I just know how to use Google and Wikipedia.
I had no idea millions of people used their phone as an alarm clock.
I sure as heck do. I have conference calls at all sorts of weird times, but only occasionally. Using a normal alarm clock would require me to check my calendar every night before bed to see if I need to adjust the setting on my alarm clock. Since my phone has my calendar in it, I just go to bed, confident that my phone will wake me up 15 minutes before any meeting I have to attend. Or if I don't have a meeting, it wakes me up at my regular time (or one hour later on weekends and holidays). It also works when I'm traveling in different time zones, etc.
It is not the direct application of mathematics on everyday life that is most beneficial, but the analytical and conceptual skill set gained by learning higher level math.
Nah. That claim was once made for teaching Latin in public schools. It's still made for teaching Euclidean plane geometry.
The fact that a similar claim is made in two different contexts and is shown to be false in one of them implies nothing about its truth or falsehood in the other. This is the worst form of argument by analogy.
Math does require a very different approach to thinking and problem solving than is common. Therefore it is quite reasonable to expect that learning math will have the effect of teaching not just the math, but also the thinking and problem solving skills. And, indeed, there is evidence that when math is taught the right way, quantitative and logical thinking skills are improved.
For most people, the first serious introduction to the concept of a rigorous proof, of careful logical deduction from a defined set of axioms, with clear justification being given for each step in the chain, is Euclidean plane geometry. That one can derive new facts from a long chain of careful logical arguments is an eye-opener for many the first time they see it, and something that not enough people in the world understand.
What's REALLY valuable is to take the next step and study just a tiny bit of non-Euclidean geometry, to understand the notion of sensitivity to axioms. I think people would get along with one another better if more of us understood how rational, thoughtful people can arrive at very different (even diametrically opposed) conclusions because they start with different premises.
Logical deduction and inference. An understanding of the value of quantitative reasoning and how and why it's superior to qualitative reasoning. A basic understanding of probability, that risks can be quantified and ranked. The concept of substitutability of equalities (and non-substitutability of inequalities). Those are skills and ideas that mathematics teaches that are useful to everyone, in every context.
Latin, on the other hand, does not require a different thought process, just a very structured approach to grammar. Latin, therefore, is useful if you want to increase your understanding of grammatical structure. It's also useful if you want to be able to read very old texts (which is the original reason that scholars learned latin). But it shouldn't surprise anyone that learning latin doesn't teach any new thinking skills. Nor does it really provide any new ideas, though in the past it opened a gateway to many.
It's ironic that, in order to actually believe your statement, one must not have a very firm grasp of probability.
The important value isn't the expected value of one's net winnings (perhaps -$0.50 for the lottery player and $0 for the abstainer), but the expectation of the utility of one's net winnings
Utility isn't a concept from either probability or statistics. It's a concept from economics. So a person with a firm grasp of probability who hasn't learned any economics (and hasn't independently invented the semi-obvious notion of utility) could very well consider the given statement to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Leaving out all philosophical idealism, I see vandalism from some registered users. Registration won't stop the assholes.
But their accounts are much easier to ban. Especially if new account holders are not permitted to edit for a period of time. It wouldn't be perfect, of course. Vandals could still set up many accounts, let them sit for a few months until they editing is allowed then use them until they get shut down. But it would make vandalism harder and more tedious. Probably enough to make a fair number of the vandals find an easier target.
The downside, of course, is that anything that makes it harder for vandals also makes it harder for legitimate but casual contributors. I don't know if the negative effect of that would outweigh the reduction in vandalism.
Most walls permit anonymous spray painting
The owners of most walls don't permit anonymous painting. If they did, I really doubt you could be prosecuted for painting an ugly mural.
Because that organisation may not have much in the way of Linux knowledgefor the setup/management/programming of the HPC cluster in-house while they have a wealth of MS experience.
Haven't worked for many big retailers, I see. Their infrastructure tends quite heterogeneous. You mentioned Wal-mart, for example. They have Linux all over the place.
I grant that your scenario isn't impossible, but it's at least quite rare.
It's not clear to me how running Windows on the HPC machine would help.
Fear itself is not wrong, only what stupid people fear is wrong. I have fears in my life, and I'm glad I do. It keeps me alive, it even motivates me.
Absolutely. Fear guides our actions in many ways, and generally for the better. Applied properly, it can help us make quick decisions with sufficient accuracy in situations where there simply isn't time to apply rational analysis. The decisions aren't always as good as rational decisions would be, but they're generally not too far off, and often doing nothing is even worse than doing something that isn't quite right.
For example, I teach concealed weapon permit courses, and one of the major challenges faced by any rational, law-abiding person who decides to carry a deadly weapon is to learn how to decide under what circumstances they should use it. In the course I cover the ins and outs of the law, but there's no way anyone can apply that knowledge in the split second available during a possibly-deadly encounter. It's too complex and too abstract.
So in addition to the law, I teach people to train themselves to use their fear, to assume that if they draw and fire their gun they will go to prison for it, and so they should only use it in circumstances where they fear the consequences of not shooting even more than that. This "balance of opposing fears" is something that can be done on an emotional level -- with "the gut" --, and it can be done very quickly. Not to mention the fact that the standard of justification in the law is based on the presence of "reasonable fear", so if you're a reasonable person and you have a great fear, then you should be legally justified when the DA and/or jury gets around to weighing your actions against the minutiae of the law.
Of course, some people are more afraid of prison than of dying, so it might not be a good standard for them.
(Aside: This being slashdot, I know I'm going to get some responses saying that anyone who wants to carry a gun already has a broken "fear sense", but that's simply untrue. I have taught many, many people and the only ones I've met who decide to carry out of a sense of fear really DO have reason to fear -- mostly women with dangerous and unstable exes. Mostly, people who decide to carry do it more out of a sense of determination that they do not want to be a victim. Not that they think they're likely to be victims, but they see it as a reasonable precaution, much like having a fire extinguisher in their car and house.)
I use either dd or tar, depending on the situation.
dd is faster if the disk is close to full -- no seeking is required, so the copy runs at the maximum rate the system can sustain. Of course, if there's a lot of empty space dd wastes time copying unused bits, and if the partition structure is complex and the last partition isn't the one that needs to grow, then dd just won't work well.
In reality a 5 year old kernel may well not support the new hardware.
If you're actually running a five year-old kernel, you have another problem -- security. The point of RHEL's long-term support is that you get updates and fixes, but they don't break your apps.
In any case, for server-type hardware this is rarely an issue. Sometimes new network cards or disk controllers come out that an old kernel might not have support for, but it's usually very easy to either (a) avoid buying such hardware or (b) add the necessary drivers. Neither option should affect your application functionality.
You trust the server hardware after 6 years?
What does that have to do with the OS install? You just use dd to copy the file system to the new drive and your new hardware is up and running with no need to worry about getting the software config right.
What I don't get is why they keep the damn button there; I assume it's cheaper to do so than to remove the button for the US market.
The button works fine in fire and sometimes service modes. It's still needed, just not for the common situation.
Yeah, reading some more after my post, I came to that conclusion. Though I suppose it's always possible to slap a network proxy API on top. Not being networkable itself will reduce the value of native Wayland apps, vs X11 apps.
Everyone knows X is shit and needs to die
I don't know that, and I think most of the people who do "know" that don't really have a clue what they're talking about.
X isn't perfect, but it's darned good. The bottom-level display protocol is weird and quirky, but it's proven to be extremely flexible and extensible. Modern X servers have excellent performance while retaining all of the network transparency and flexibility from the original design.
That said, I think Wayland may actually be a worthy successor. It retains the basic client/server architecture which is really important, but replaces the quirky X protocol with a new (and, hopefully, cleaner) protocol. It provides a way to retain X compatibility by making the X server a Wayland client. It brings the compositor, which is a somewhat-klunky add-on to X into the core of the display server where it belongs, given that compositing is clearly the best way to combine elements into a whole display.
As long as Wayland's protocol is sufficiently extensible to allow future improvements in the way we do graphical environments, the way X's protocol has proven to be, I think it might be an excellent idea. That, really, is my biggest concern. The X protocol has proven to be extremely extensible and I worry that a new technology might not have that same flexibility. We don't know what the future will bring and we don't want to be painted into a corner where massive rework is required to adopt a new approach. Of course, that could happen with X as well -- but so far the X protocol has proven to be remarkably adaptable.
Even that doesn't really worry me, though. I expect that the Wayland team has absorbed the lessons of X's excellence and is endeavoring to retain them in the new design.
Forwarding X isn't really an ideal way to do things anymore. VNC/RDP and other protocalls are MUCH faster then using X
Bicycling isn't really an ideal way to do things any more. Automobiles are much faster than bicycles.
Okay, so not a perfect analogy, but you get the point. VNC/RDP can't forward just a remote application, they have to bring the whole desktop. They can't integrate cut and paste as seamlessly as forwarded X. They don't allow your local window manager to choose where things are placed, how they're moved, etc.
There are plenty of cases where VNC/RDP make perfect sense and forwarded X connections do not. There are also plenty of cases where the reverse is true. Different tools for different situations.
People have come to rely on an X server, specifically, being available to them.
I had the same thought, but after looking at the Wayland architecture I'm less concerned. Here's a relevant quote from the Wayland architecture pages:
Wayland is a complete window system in itself, but even so, if we're migrating away from X, it makes sense to have a good backwards compatibility story. With a few changes, the Xorg server can be modified to use wayland input devices for input and forward either the root window or individual top-level windows as wayland surfaces. The server still runs the same 2D driver with the same acceleration code as it does when it runs natively, the main difference is that wayland handles presentation of the windows instead of KMS.
So it sounds like application developers will have a choice of using the Wayland window system directly, or using the X protocol to talk to an X server which uses Wayland to display its output. In practice, of course, no one will do either. Application developers use toolkits like Qt, GTK, wx, etc., so what will probably happen is that the toolkits will choose either the X or the Wayland protocol, perhaps dynamically based on the available options.
I was pretty sure when I went to look at the Wayland stuff that this is a bad idea. After reading about it a bit, though, I'm not so sure. Wayland is designed around the notion of compositor-based display, which is clearly where everything is now or is going soon, while the compositor is a somewhat-klunky add-on to an X server. If Wayland can retain X's network transparency, streamline and simplify the graphics architecture, provide a cleaner and less...bizarre... protocol, and also allow native X apps to continue running without issue and to be gradually ported from the X protocol to the Wayland protocol as it becomes convenient... I think it may be a very good idea indeed.
I'm pretty sure two flags on a pole is some sort of faux pas.
What makes you think there was a Costa Rican flag at all? Or even a flagpole before the Nicaraguans set up their camp?
How could they not know something was wrong when they find the wrong flag on the flagpole?
The original article says that they raised the Nicaraguan flag, but not that they took down a Costa Rican flag. I'm not sure where that "information" came from.
So Jefferson proposed a proportional representation approach. Interesting.
I'd have been really surprised if Jefferson had pointed out the mathematical problems with the plurality system since the math to analyze it wasn't invented/discovered until about 150 years later.
OTOH, Jefferson was a very smart guy.
Working for a candidate is good, but even better is to help select the candidate, which is what you can do if you work the caucuses.
Jefferson did point out the mathematical problems with the system
Cite?
I'm sitting this one out, and possibly 2012 as well. Voting for the guy or gal that lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar. The very nature of politics nowadays automatically means someone with enough clout to run for election is unfit to serve...
Here's a better option for 2012: Pick a party and get involved.
The party platforms aren't dictated top-down, they're built bottom-up. And the bottom layer is surprisingly small. Most local caucuses are attended by a bare handful of people, from whom one is selected to go to the state caucus. If you can get a handful of people who think your way to attend most of those local caucus meetings, you can take over control of the state-level party. If you can do that in a couple of dozen states, you've taken control of the national party. "Taken control" is a bit too strong, perhaps, but only a bit.
Simply sitting out accomplishes nothing. It's not a way to protest, even if it feels that way. No one will notice.
Voting for third parties also accomplishes nothing. The major parties might notice if the effect is large enough, but since the major result of third-party "success" is to give the election away to the the major party who is ideologically furthest from the third party, the effect isn't going to be what you want. A third-party vote is either a do-nothing vote or a vote for the greater of two evils.
The two major parties are so thoroughly established in this country, and the power of party voting is so overwhelming, that trying to do anything significant outside of those parties is just a waste of effort -- when it's not actually counterproductive. Instead, pick the party that is closest to your beliefs and get involved, pushing it to move closer to what you want.
So if there are half as many of them
Then each individual loss will have twice the logistical impact.
No, each loss will have exactly the same logistical impact. The number of convoys is halved because demand is halved. The net effect is that losing one convoy results in the same number of hours without AC (assuming no storage capacity and spare delivery capacity, which is certainly not the case).
Also, arguably, twice the terror impact on the folks in the flak jackets, which has all kinds of interesting effect from increased PTSD to increased civilian casualties (itchy trigger finger when terrified)
Again, no. Under this model (and I'm not commenting on how realistic the model is, just on your erroneous inferences from it), each convoy has roughly the same probability of being attacked/destroyed. No great change in impact on the folks in the flak jackets. Except, of course, for greater opportunity to rotate the personnel, reducing each individual's time in danger, and greater spare capacity for convoy escorts, increasing convoy firepower and convoy safety.
It is still funny to point and laugh, at least a little.
Indeed it is.
The VW Beetle used a horizontally-opposed engine, which is not the same thing as an opposed-piston engine. In an opposed-piston engine, each cylinder is double-ended, with a piston at each end and no head. A horizontally-opposed engine uses ordinary single-ended cylinders with a head and one piston.
No, I don't know anything about this stuff. I just know how to use Google and Wikipedia.
I had no idea millions of people used their phone as an alarm clock.
I sure as heck do. I have conference calls at all sorts of weird times, but only occasionally. Using a normal alarm clock would require me to check my calendar every night before bed to see if I need to adjust the setting on my alarm clock. Since my phone has my calendar in it, I just go to bed, confident that my phone will wake me up 15 minutes before any meeting I have to attend. Or if I don't have a meeting, it wakes me up at my regular time (or one hour later on weekends and holidays). It also works when I'm traveling in different time zones, etc.
It is not the direct application of mathematics on everyday life that is most beneficial, but the analytical and conceptual skill set gained by learning higher level math.
Nah. That claim was once made for teaching Latin in public schools. It's still made for teaching Euclidean plane geometry.
The fact that a similar claim is made in two different contexts and is shown to be false in one of them implies nothing about its truth or falsehood in the other. This is the worst form of argument by analogy.
Math does require a very different approach to thinking and problem solving than is common. Therefore it is quite reasonable to expect that learning math will have the effect of teaching not just the math, but also the thinking and problem solving skills. And, indeed, there is evidence that when math is taught the right way, quantitative and logical thinking skills are improved.
For most people, the first serious introduction to the concept of a rigorous proof, of careful logical deduction from a defined set of axioms, with clear justification being given for each step in the chain, is Euclidean plane geometry. That one can derive new facts from a long chain of careful logical arguments is an eye-opener for many the first time they see it, and something that not enough people in the world understand.
What's REALLY valuable is to take the next step and study just a tiny bit of non-Euclidean geometry, to understand the notion of sensitivity to axioms. I think people would get along with one another better if more of us understood how rational, thoughtful people can arrive at very different (even diametrically opposed) conclusions because they start with different premises.
Logical deduction and inference. An understanding of the value of quantitative reasoning and how and why it's superior to qualitative reasoning. A basic understanding of probability, that risks can be quantified and ranked. The concept of substitutability of equalities (and non-substitutability of inequalities). Those are skills and ideas that mathematics teaches that are useful to everyone, in every context.
Latin, on the other hand, does not require a different thought process, just a very structured approach to grammar. Latin, therefore, is useful if you want to increase your understanding of grammatical structure. It's also useful if you want to be able to read very old texts (which is the original reason that scholars learned latin). But it shouldn't surprise anyone that learning latin doesn't teach any new thinking skills. Nor does it really provide any new ideas, though in the past it opened a gateway to many.
It's ironic that, in order to actually believe your statement, one must not have a very firm grasp of probability. The important value isn't the expected value of one's net winnings (perhaps -$0.50 for the lottery player and $0 for the abstainer), but the expectation of the utility of one's net winnings
Utility isn't a concept from either probability or statistics. It's a concept from economics. So a person with a firm grasp of probability who hasn't learned any economics (and hasn't independently invented the semi-obvious notion of utility) could very well consider the given statement to be true.
They wear gloves.