Try taking notes on the number of aggressive displays you see from males to females and from females to males. One of them far outnumber the other, but you may have to train yourself to even notice it in order to count it. Especially take note of how often aggression is not returned to which gender. Females are far more aggressive to the other gender, you just haven't been trained to notice it as inappropriate so you don't. I don't think that's because they are inherently that way, it's just that it has no cost to females to be aggressive to men, while men are much more at risk.
That's a bizarre read on what he wrote. The implied message is that women are as able to contribute as anyone else, and if they then don't choose to, then that's OK too. If the environment of discussion on Wikipedia is hostile, it can't be hostile to women in particular as contributers on Wikipedia are anonymous and their gender isn't likely to ever come up. If there is a concern it should be about the people who are actually contributing and hence suffering under this hostile environment if it actually exists. Many more men than women have made even a single edit to Wikipedia, so it can't be about what happens after an edit is made anyway.
If you go by the argument that the potential for personality characteristics required to partake in certain processes shouldn't be stereotyped to the sexes, why is Wikipedia editing not as statistically balanced as general net usage? What's the cause of this inequality?
If we go by the argument that water and no water are as likely to cause erosion, why is erosion not equally distributed among deserts and beaches? What is the cause of this inequality?
Right back at you. What happened is that they typed them into www.google.com while merely having the Bing toolbar installed, so how about you get it right before calling other people out. They didn't type the queries into the Bing toolbar. However, even had they done so, it doesn't make any difference to Bing extracting links from Google through users of the toolbar. So your reply is doubly ill conceived in that even if you weren't wrong, you'd still be wrong.
You think the other commenters are clueless because it's you who don't get it. The point is that the users typed those search queries into Google and then selected search results that Google provided. Bing is not harvesting search results from Google directly, but they might as well have been doing that - this is just a more roundabout way of accomplishing the exact same thing as Bing directly doing searches at Google and noting the results for use as search results on Bing itself. The result is the same.
I don't assume that criminals had a high quality social circle prior to going to jail. I do assume that often their social circle will not be 100% criminals the way it will be in prison.
Post signs saying "phone conversations not allowed near prison." After that, the situation is much like a suspects friend borrowing his tapped phone to make an unrelated personal call - it'll be picked up and that's the way it goes. It should be deleted and be in-admissible for any unrelated case.
That. If prison is "we'll take your social circle and replace them with all these other criminals and you don't get to have any contact with the people you knew", then we shouldn't be surprised when people exit prison as hardened and more-proficient criminals than when they entered.
In all of those cases Google did nothing to try to hide the fact of what they were doing. In this case it's clear what Microsoft is doing and yet now they are "vehemently denying" it.
They didn't "go through the toolbar". They simply went to the Google site and made a search on a computer with IE and the toolbar installed. The toolbar then must have intercepted the search string that was typed into Google and associated it with the results from Google that the user clicked on and reported this information back to Microsoft. Microsoft then uses these Google search result clicks to improve Bing. That's copying plain and simple. You may think that it is copying that is OK and legal. That's another question entirely.
The real problem is that if you are running IPv6 and the server you are connecting to doesn't, you won't get a connection. You could fall back to IPv4 in that case, but do you then wait for a time-out on the IPv6 attempt? In that case your surfing will be extremely slow. Worse, if you CAN fall back to IPv4 then you must have an IPv4 address and so you've actually done nothing to solve the problem of address exhaustion.
He'd disagree with the use of the label "random" to what he calls "free". His lecture is a mix between what may for all I know be a perfectly valid contribution to physics in his theorem, and then a sad game of semantics on free/random that can't go where he wants to take it. The basis of his argument is to say that QM random is a little different from classical random, and then if we call that other kind of random "free", well, then we are free! If something can go either way, and if we re-run the world it goes one way 50% of the time and the other way 50% of the time, then it's hard to see why we shouldn't call that random. It might go the same way every time, and then we are back to determinism. So there is no space for "free" other than as some kind of random or some kind of deterministic.
OK, I've viewed the first half of the last lecture too now. You are not mistaken. I'd say it's him being deceptive with words to make headlines, but it seems more like he's just confusing himself. The last lecture gives off exactly the sad air of a priest trying to prove that his particular god exists. He is embarrassing himself so much by the quality of his first two arguments in the last lecture that I can't bring myself to listen to any more of it, especially in light of his congratulating the strength of these arguments. His whole philosophical angle on this seems based solely on making a distinction between classical random and QM random and then arbitrarily using the word "free" about the QM random. Yet there is nothing novel about noting that the random in QM is not the classical kind of random. Random doesn't get you to free will as people usually use that word, and so calling random "free" doesn't by itself get him anywhere. That is as true of QM random as it is of classical random. He even grants that by making reference to how his "free" is a "technical notion" and of how what he is saying is true only in this "technical sense", yet then he goes on talking as though he never said that.
That was easy - less than 15 minutes into the first lecture he defines very precisely what he means by "free will". In his words, an object has free will if it's future is not determined by its past. Thus he is using free will as synonymous with random. Unless he changes his mind later into the lectures, you didn't understand his lectures - they are about free will in name only. Does he change his mind?
He may believe that there is no way to win the case and is instead seeking to force Facebook to change their practices which he sees as unjust through bad press such as this Slashdot story. If he kept money that he didn't expect to receive then that wouldn't be doing it for the money.
I tried to google this, but didn't find what you described, and I'm not motivated enough to listen to long lectures which I anyway also can't find. So I grant that I don't have any information about what John Conway is actually saying. The only way I can imagine someone to make sense of free will is if they redefine it in a way such that it becomes something unlike what people are thinking of when they normally use the words free will. At that point the attempt to save free will as a sensible concept has failed since the thing that is being made sense of isn't free will. E.g. I could redefine "has free will" to mean "has mass" and then it won't be hard to show that some things have free will as I have just defined it. I'd be mightily surprised if John Conway has found a way out of this - it seems much more likely that he won't accept that free will doesn't make sense and so is contesting it just for that reason. Still, if you have a link that lays out his idea on this, I'd be interested to see it.
It doesn't matter if determinism is true because determinism isn't relevant to free will - it's just that it's a little more obvious that free will doesn't make sense in a deterministic universe. Let's imagine a completely non-deterministic universe, where the next moment is completely unrelated to whatever came before it. It is all completely random. Do you see free will in that universe? The alternatives are mixes between the two with some determinism, some rules, and some chaos, some randomness. At what mix of rule-bound and random do you find free will? Or in other words, if you accept that free will doesn't make sense in a deterministic universe, how does randomness help you in making sense of free will? The argument is not that you don't have free will, it's that free will is a concept that doesn't even make sense, so the answer isn't "no, you don't have free will" it's "WTF are you talking about?"
Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine?
No it does not. Sadly, it seems Isaac Asimov has simply made assumptions about what IQ is in the same way that you have. On their face those assumptions seem reasonable - surely these academic people have simply come up with questions that they themselves think you have to be smart to solve? That's all an IQ test is, right? In fact the construction of an IQ test is a difficult matter and it can even fail and it will be clear from the process when there is a failure. There is a reason IQ tests look the way they do, and it's not just because the people who made the tests happen to feel good about such academic-seeming questions. You could make IQ tests with none of those kinds of questions, they would just be much more expensive to administer because they would have to have many more questions in them to measure as precisely as a good IQ test does (and yes, you can quantify the precision of an IQ test). I'm not going to explain it here, but if you think that sounds strange, be my guest and educate yourself on the matter.
You might as well be saying that oxidation does all work so that humans on their own don't actually generate any wealth - it's all about the oxidation going on in our bodies. You organize that oxidation in a meaningful way to make things happen, and under capitalism work is organized in a meaningful way that creates more wealth than under many other systems.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't want a teacher teaching the students to spell every word wrong. That concept applies not just to writing.
Try taking notes on the number of aggressive displays you see from males to females and from females to males. One of them far outnumber the other, but you may have to train yourself to even notice it in order to count it. Especially take note of how often aggression is not returned to which gender. Females are far more aggressive to the other gender, you just haven't been trained to notice it as inappropriate so you don't. I don't think that's because they are inherently that way, it's just that it has no cost to females to be aggressive to men, while men are much more at risk.
That's a bizarre read on what he wrote. The implied message is that women are as able to contribute as anyone else, and if they then don't choose to, then that's OK too. If the environment of discussion on Wikipedia is hostile, it can't be hostile to women in particular as contributers on Wikipedia are anonymous and their gender isn't likely to ever come up. If there is a concern it should be about the people who are actually contributing and hence suffering under this hostile environment if it actually exists. Many more men than women have made even a single edit to Wikipedia, so it can't be about what happens after an edit is made anyway.
If you go by the argument that the potential for personality characteristics required to partake in certain processes shouldn't be stereotyped to the sexes, why is Wikipedia editing not as statistically balanced as general net usage? What's the cause of this inequality?
If we go by the argument that water and no water are as likely to cause erosion, why is erosion not equally distributed among deserts and beaches? What is the cause of this inequality?
I find it amusing that feminism and misogyny are now indistinguishable.
Right back at you. What happened is that they typed them into www.google.com while merely having the Bing toolbar installed, so how about you get it right before calling other people out. They didn't type the queries into the Bing toolbar. However, even had they done so, it doesn't make any difference to Bing extracting links from Google through users of the toolbar. So your reply is doubly ill conceived in that even if you weren't wrong, you'd still be wrong.
Slashdot certainly could do better. It never actually has, though.
You think the other commenters are clueless because it's you who don't get it. The point is that the users typed those search queries into Google and then selected search results that Google provided. Bing is not harvesting search results from Google directly, but they might as well have been doing that - this is just a more roundabout way of accomplishing the exact same thing as Bing directly doing searches at Google and noting the results for use as search results on Bing itself. The result is the same.
I don't assume that criminals had a high quality social circle prior to going to jail. I do assume that often their social circle will not be 100% criminals the way it will be in prison.
Post signs saying "phone conversations not allowed near prison." After that, the situation is much like a suspects friend borrowing his tapped phone to make an unrelated personal call - it'll be picked up and that's the way it goes. It should be deleted and be in-admissible for any unrelated case.
That. If prison is "we'll take your social circle and replace them with all these other criminals and you don't get to have any contact with the people you knew", then we shouldn't be surprised when people exit prison as hardened and more-proficient criminals than when they entered.
In all of those cases Google did nothing to try to hide the fact of what they were doing. In this case it's clear what Microsoft is doing and yet now they are "vehemently denying" it.
They didn't "go through the toolbar". They simply went to the Google site and made a search on a computer with IE and the toolbar installed. The toolbar then must have intercepted the search string that was typed into Google and associated it with the results from Google that the user clicked on and reported this information back to Microsoft. Microsoft then uses these Google search result clicks to improve Bing. That's copying plain and simple. You may think that it is copying that is OK and legal. That's another question entirely.
The real problem is that if you are running IPv6 and the server you are connecting to doesn't, you won't get a connection. You could fall back to IPv4 in that case, but do you then wait for a time-out on the IPv6 attempt? In that case your surfing will be extremely slow. Worse, if you CAN fall back to IPv4 then you must have an IPv4 address and so you've actually done nothing to solve the problem of address exhaustion.
He'd disagree with the use of the label "random" to what he calls "free". His lecture is a mix between what may for all I know be a perfectly valid contribution to physics in his theorem, and then a sad game of semantics on free/random that can't go where he wants to take it. The basis of his argument is to say that QM random is a little different from classical random, and then if we call that other kind of random "free", well, then we are free! If something can go either way, and if we re-run the world it goes one way 50% of the time and the other way 50% of the time, then it's hard to see why we shouldn't call that random. It might go the same way every time, and then we are back to determinism. So there is no space for "free" other than as some kind of random or some kind of deterministic.
OK, I've viewed the first half of the last lecture too now. You are not mistaken. I'd say it's him being deceptive with words to make headlines, but it seems more like he's just confusing himself. The last lecture gives off exactly the sad air of a priest trying to prove that his particular god exists. He is embarrassing himself so much by the quality of his first two arguments in the last lecture that I can't bring myself to listen to any more of it, especially in light of his congratulating the strength of these arguments. His whole philosophical angle on this seems based solely on making a distinction between classical random and QM random and then arbitrarily using the word "free" about the QM random. Yet there is nothing novel about noting that the random in QM is not the classical kind of random. Random doesn't get you to free will as people usually use that word, and so calling random "free" doesn't by itself get him anywhere. That is as true of QM random as it is of classical random. He even grants that by making reference to how his "free" is a "technical notion" and of how what he is saying is true only in this "technical sense", yet then he goes on talking as though he never said that.
That was easy - less than 15 minutes into the first lecture he defines very precisely what he means by "free will". In his words, an object has free will if it's future is not determined by its past. Thus he is using free will as synonymous with random. Unless he changes his mind later into the lectures, you didn't understand his lectures - they are about free will in name only. Does he change his mind?
He may believe that there is no way to win the case and is instead seeking to force Facebook to change their practices which he sees as unjust through bad press such as this Slashdot story. If he kept money that he didn't expect to receive then that wouldn't be doing it for the money.
I tried to google this, but didn't find what you described, and I'm not motivated enough to listen to long lectures which I anyway also can't find. So I grant that I don't have any information about what John Conway is actually saying. The only way I can imagine someone to make sense of free will is if they redefine it in a way such that it becomes something unlike what people are thinking of when they normally use the words free will. At that point the attempt to save free will as a sensible concept has failed since the thing that is being made sense of isn't free will. E.g. I could redefine "has free will" to mean "has mass" and then it won't be hard to show that some things have free will as I have just defined it. I'd be mightily surprised if John Conway has found a way out of this - it seems much more likely that he won't accept that free will doesn't make sense and so is contesting it just for that reason. Still, if you have a link that lays out his idea on this, I'd be interested to see it.
It doesn't matter if determinism is true because determinism isn't relevant to free will - it's just that it's a little more obvious that free will doesn't make sense in a deterministic universe. Let's imagine a completely non-deterministic universe, where the next moment is completely unrelated to whatever came before it. It is all completely random. Do you see free will in that universe? The alternatives are mixes between the two with some determinism, some rules, and some chaos, some randomness. At what mix of rule-bound and random do you find free will? Or in other words, if you accept that free will doesn't make sense in a deterministic universe, how does randomness help you in making sense of free will? The argument is not that you don't have free will, it's that free will is a concept that doesn't even make sense, so the answer isn't "no, you don't have free will" it's "WTF are you talking about?"
Probably about as many as are DMs in D&D sessions with their gang.
Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine?
No it does not. Sadly, it seems Isaac Asimov has simply made assumptions about what IQ is in the same way that you have. On their face those assumptions seem reasonable - surely these academic people have simply come up with questions that they themselves think you have to be smart to solve? That's all an IQ test is, right? In fact the construction of an IQ test is a difficult matter and it can even fail and it will be clear from the process when there is a failure. There is a reason IQ tests look the way they do, and it's not just because the people who made the tests happen to feel good about such academic-seeming questions. You could make IQ tests with none of those kinds of questions, they would just be much more expensive to administer because they would have to have many more questions in them to measure as precisely as a good IQ test does (and yes, you can quantify the precision of an IQ test). I'm not going to explain it here, but if you think that sounds strange, be my guest and educate yourself on the matter.
You might as well be saying that oxidation does all work so that humans on their own don't actually generate any wealth - it's all about the oxidation going on in our bodies. You organize that oxidation in a meaningful way to make things happen, and under capitalism work is organized in a meaningful way that creates more wealth than under many other systems.
Most measures of intelligence are based on tests written by white males who consider themselves intelligent.
That's true. That you portray it as an interesting statement betrays that you very likely don't actually know what IQ is.
"Schmoozers" network with clients. The clients are not necessarily themselves schmoozers.