All philosophical theories suck - philosophy is the practice of coming up with explicit theories in order to poke holes in them. Any time you attempt to be really precise about anything in the world, you are going to be wrong. That's why "define X" is always a winning move in a discussion, if you are willing to be sufficiently pedantic. There is no metaphysics that "works" once you get precise about things, because nothing that claims to touch reality works if it has to be precise. It's not a shallow pool to draw from - there is no pool.
That happens a lot in mathematics too - it has to, or mathematicians would have to spend all their time refuting amateur "proofs" of famous open problems.
As I recall Wikileaks did redact some parts of the US military leak to e.g. remove names, and even requested Pentagon aid for doing so (and were denied). So it's not that Wikileaks believes that absolutely everything needs to be public, it's that they believe more things should be public than are right now. I'm sure there is lively discussion at Wikileaks get-togethers about precisely what should be public and what should be allowed to remain secret. The main problem is that things that should not be secret are convenient to advertise under a banner of things that clearly should be secret. That complicates the discussion about what things should remain secret, since if you don't know the secret, how do you know that it actually should be secret?
No one likes being leaked about. I'm sure Assange believes that it was unprofessional for the US military to be unable to prevent leaks. Same goes for the police. Are you seriously thinking that Wikileaks, a press organization, should have the same approach to information that the police should? If not, then there is nothing hypocritical about Assange disliking when the the police is being run in the same way as a press organization, especially when that is damaging to him. Even when he is himself running a press organization. In the same way I can believe that violence can be necessary in some circumstances, yet dislike being subjected to violence myself. There is nothing hypocritical about that. The police is not Wikileaks and shouldn't act in the same ways - Assange is complaining that they are. In the same way the police can complain if I run around giving out traffic tickets even though they do the same thing themselves - that's because the police should do different things than I should do.
Wikileaks did not leak it's own donor list in the same way that they don't leak anything. Someone got access to that information through a mistake at Wikileaks, and that person then submitted the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks recognized that the information they had received was the sort of information that they deal in, so to remain credible and to not be hypocrites, they published it even though they didn't like that information to be available. Because they are Wikileaks and so should act in different ways than e.g. the police.
I've been sleeping with women regularly for sixteen years and trust me, it's basically impossible to have non-forced sex with a woman unless she is awake.
Are you trolling, or just ignorant? Most people don't know what organic food is, but if you're going to make an argument about it, why not educate yourself on the subject first rather than just spout your own prejudices for everyone on the internet to read?
It's funny, I almost always find that people who start with a line like that are actually unwittingly talking about themselves, and you live up to that more than most. There, I've now offered about as much of a substantive argument as you have (yes, I saw your links).
So it is ok to commit evil as long as I "serve" with my conscience also.
The point of serving with your conscience is not to commit evil.
I should point out also that a lot of people simply aren't and won't have the desired level of morality no matter how much you devalue them. We are then left with their actions and consequences. I prefer a society where even the actions of the base and immoral benefit others.
That is compatible with disliking immoral actions.
The very best and pretty much only evidence so far that NP != PH or even that P != NP is that everyone who has tried to prove equality has failed. Mathematics is not limited by human ingenuity, so that we fail to prove something is to me no evidence that that thing is false. No one has proven P != NP either, but the argument there is that proving lower bounds is harder than coming up with algorithms, which I find to be a poor argument as well. Many complexity theorists disagree with me on that, as evidenced by the many claims that "no one thinks that P=NP" and e.g. your post. Still, it does not suffice to say that NP=PH would be very surprising. Also, why do you believe that NP=coNP implies NP=PH? I've never heard such a thing, I've heard statements from complexity theorists that seem incompatible with that and the Wikipedia entry for both coNP and PH state no such thing.
Cultural politeness on a 1-on-1 basis is distinct from the kind of foreign policy that a country sets up. In fact the very idea that "They're some of the politest and most welcoming people you'll ever meet" can be used in an argument for cultural superiority that justifies interfering in the rest of the world. That can sometimes even be a good thing. What I'm saying is that it is possible for a country to simultaneously be a country of individually polite people and a country of warmongers.
It is also difficult to find something to sensibly call Wikileaks a terrorist organization over without then also having to say that the New York Times is a terrorist organization. This terrorist talk is a consequence of the US intel leak, on which Wikileaks has so far published no more than the New York Times and other papers have also published. Wikileaks is wholly a press organization and the attempt to classify them as terrorists is counter to everything Americans like to say that America stands for.
That's not what the quote said: "serve the state with their consciences also". The quote is against citizens who disregard moral distinctions when following the law, not all government employees.
Understanding global warming, basic nuclear physics, basic quantum mechanics and the number theory underlying public key encryption come to mind. There is no profit in laying the groundwork for things like that. Such things aren't a specific thing you do and then market what came out of it. It's a rising tide of understanding that enable you to even think the thoughts involved in making products based on it.
He's the least likable person on the whole show, including the evil aliens and invaders. He's the sort to decide he doesn't like someone because they wear striped clothes and brutally murder them for it.
not only does the "hacker" have to find an exploit in the browser, but in the sandbox as well, making it exponentially more difficult.
Huh, I'm pretty sure you don't know what exponential means, but you actually by mistake managed to use it in a way that makes a little sense, even if it takes a little creativity to see it. If the probability of being able to find a hole in a given layer is p, and there are n layers to get through (not just 2), and the probabilities are independent, the chance of finding a hole in all of them is p^n. Absurd assumptions, but it still amuses that someone used "exponentially" in a way that almost made sense in this sort of context - first time that I've ever seen that.
Actually, I think not: I think enemies scale with your level. And at a given level you will be much stronger by concentrating on a few core skills.
Your level goes up as a function purely of your major skills. It is true that you will be stronger by concentrating on a few skills, but since you can raise them without raising your level by having those skills be not your major skills, your game became easier by raising your non-major skills.
and I had way too many points in secondary stuff compared to the optimal highly-focused strategy
Because of the way Oblivion works, that actually made the game easier for you - the more points you have outside your major skills, the easier the game is. That is because the enemies scale with your major skills but not your other skills.
Apparently, you decided to abuse the mechanics to gain any edge possible, and you blame the game for letting you.
Actually, while that was not at all what I was saying in my post, I do think that games should be made to be fun when played optimally. A game designer should think through how a player can optimize their progression and then make sure that whatever is involved in that is fun to do because lots of people are going to play it that way. Oblivion's design is absurd when played in that way, so that is bad design. On top of that Oblivion's design is so broken that playing it normally can lead to unplayability if at the beginning you don't understand the absurd implications of the design and choose non-combat abilities as your major skills and then advanced them too far. Putting bandits in daedric armor didn't make them challenging in any way - all it made them was take forever to kill while they weren't actually much of a danger to you. Not fun.
Slashdot Mirror
All philosophical theories suck - philosophy is the practice of coming up with explicit theories in order to poke holes in them. Any time you attempt to be really precise about anything in the world, you are going to be wrong. That's why "define X" is always a winning move in a discussion, if you are willing to be sufficiently pedantic. There is no metaphysics that "works" once you get precise about things, because nothing that claims to touch reality works if it has to be precise. It's not a shallow pool to draw from - there is no pool.
That happens a lot in mathematics too - it has to, or mathematicians would have to spend all their time refuting amateur "proofs" of famous open problems.
As I recall Wikileaks did redact some parts of the US military leak to e.g. remove names, and even requested Pentagon aid for doing so (and were denied). So it's not that Wikileaks believes that absolutely everything needs to be public, it's that they believe more things should be public than are right now. I'm sure there is lively discussion at Wikileaks get-togethers about precisely what should be public and what should be allowed to remain secret. The main problem is that things that should not be secret are convenient to advertise under a banner of things that clearly should be secret. That complicates the discussion about what things should remain secret, since if you don't know the secret, how do you know that it actually should be secret?
No one likes being leaked about. I'm sure Assange believes that it was unprofessional for the US military to be unable to prevent leaks. Same goes for the police. Are you seriously thinking that Wikileaks, a press organization, should have the same approach to information that the police should? If not, then there is nothing hypocritical about Assange disliking when the the police is being run in the same way as a press organization, especially when that is damaging to him. Even when he is himself running a press organization. In the same way I can believe that violence can be necessary in some circumstances, yet dislike being subjected to violence myself. There is nothing hypocritical about that. The police is not Wikileaks and shouldn't act in the same ways - Assange is complaining that they are. In the same way the police can complain if I run around giving out traffic tickets even though they do the same thing themselves - that's because the police should do different things than I should do.
Wikileaks did not leak it's own donor list in the same way that they don't leak anything. Someone got access to that information through a mistake at Wikileaks, and that person then submitted the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks recognized that the information they had received was the sort of information that they deal in, so to remain credible and to not be hypocrites, they published it even though they didn't like that information to be available. Because they are Wikileaks and so should act in different ways than e.g. the police.
I've been sleeping with women regularly for sixteen years and trust me, it's basically impossible to have non-forced sex with a woman unless she is awake.
Hmm...
Are you trolling, or just ignorant? Most people don't know what organic food is, but if you're going to make an argument about it, why not educate yourself on the subject first rather than just spout your own prejudices for everyone on the internet to read?
It's funny, I almost always find that people who start with a line like that are actually unwittingly talking about themselves, and you live up to that more than most. There, I've now offered about as much of a substantive argument as you have (yes, I saw your links).
So it is ok to commit evil as long as I "serve" with my conscience also.
The point of serving with your conscience is not to commit evil.
I should point out also that a lot of people simply aren't and won't have the desired level of morality no matter how much you devalue them. We are then left with their actions and consequences. I prefer a society where even the actions of the base and immoral benefit others.
That is compatible with disliking immoral actions.
The very best and pretty much only evidence so far that NP != PH or even that P != NP is that everyone who has tried to prove equality has failed. Mathematics is not limited by human ingenuity, so that we fail to prove something is to me no evidence that that thing is false. No one has proven P != NP either, but the argument there is that proving lower bounds is harder than coming up with algorithms, which I find to be a poor argument as well. Many complexity theorists disagree with me on that, as evidenced by the many claims that "no one thinks that P=NP" and e.g. your post. Still, it does not suffice to say that NP=PH would be very surprising. Also, why do you believe that NP=coNP implies NP=PH? I've never heard such a thing, I've heard statements from complexity theorists that seem incompatible with that and the Wikipedia entry for both coNP and PH state no such thing.
Cultural politeness on a 1-on-1 basis is distinct from the kind of foreign policy that a country sets up. In fact the very idea that "They're some of the politest and most welcoming people you'll ever meet" can be used in an argument for cultural superiority that justifies interfering in the rest of the world. That can sometimes even be a good thing. What I'm saying is that it is possible for a country to simultaneously be a country of individually polite people and a country of warmongers.
It is also difficult to find something to sensibly call Wikileaks a terrorist organization over without then also having to say that the New York Times is a terrorist organization. This terrorist talk is a consequence of the US intel leak, on which Wikileaks has so far published no more than the New York Times and other papers have also published. Wikileaks is wholly a press organization and the attempt to classify them as terrorists is counter to everything Americans like to say that America stands for.
That's not what the quote said: "serve the state with their consciences also". The quote is against citizens who disregard moral distinctions when following the law, not all government employees.
Unfortunately, the mathematics researcher who previously checked these ideas for mathematical sanity was cut.
Understanding global warming, basic nuclear physics, basic quantum mechanics and the number theory underlying public key encryption come to mind. There is no profit in laying the groundwork for things like that. Such things aren't a specific thing you do and then market what came out of it. It's a rising tide of understanding that enable you to even think the thoughts involved in making products based on it.
He's the least likable person on the whole show, including the evil aliens and invaders. He's the sort to decide he doesn't like someone because they wear striped clothes and brutally murder them for it.
I'd say equating sex with adult other than as a euphemism is itself juvenile.
lol
Here's some self-help. No need to thank me.
I'm sorry I said you probably didn't in that case.
Your comment's humor derives from thinking that knowledge = low status.
not only does the "hacker" have to find an exploit in the browser, but in the sandbox as well, making it exponentially more difficult.
Huh, I'm pretty sure you don't know what exponential means, but you actually by mistake managed to use it in a way that makes a little sense, even if it takes a little creativity to see it. If the probability of being able to find a hole in a given layer is p, and there are n layers to get through (not just 2), and the probabilities are independent, the chance of finding a hole in all of them is p^n. Absurd assumptions, but it still amuses that someone used "exponentially" in a way that almost made sense in this sort of context - first time that I've ever seen that.
I hear they guy also can't spell.
Actually, I think not: I think enemies scale with your level. And at a given level you will be much stronger by concentrating on a few core skills.
Your level goes up as a function purely of your major skills. It is true that you will be stronger by concentrating on a few skills, but since you can raise them without raising your level by having those skills be not your major skills, your game became easier by raising your non-major skills.
and I had way too many points in secondary stuff compared to the optimal highly-focused strategy
Because of the way Oblivion works, that actually made the game easier for you - the more points you have outside your major skills, the easier the game is. That is because the enemies scale with your major skills but not your other skills.
Apparently, you decided to abuse the mechanics to gain any edge possible, and you blame the game for letting you.
Actually, while that was not at all what I was saying in my post, I do think that games should be made to be fun when played optimally. A game designer should think through how a player can optimize their progression and then make sure that whatever is involved in that is fun to do because lots of people are going to play it that way. Oblivion's design is absurd when played in that way, so that is bad design. On top of that Oblivion's design is so broken that playing it normally can lead to unplayability if at the beginning you don't understand the absurd implications of the design and choose non-combat abilities as your major skills and then advanced them too far. Putting bandits in daedric armor didn't make them challenging in any way - all it made them was take forever to kill while they weren't actually much of a danger to you. Not fun.
"This is the last digit of pi"