seem to me to be two separate things. Statistics tells you what happens when. Understanding tells you why things happen when they do. Statistics can give you data, but not reasons. Understanding requires both. Even with all the data in the world, we're still going to need some kind of interpretative framework to make sense of it all, and creating that framework is the one thing Big Data doesn't make easier.
But my imagination never suffers from bad actors, dumb dialogue or terrible cgi. The point of movies, tv shows and especially books is not that they make it easier to imagine, but that they can show you things you wouldn't have thought of by yourself, which is not applicable in the emo-glasses situation.
Why would anyone interpret simulated expressions as genuine other than to delude themselves? And if you're willing to delude yourself, you could also just interpret apathy as caring. I don't understand how this is supposed to work.
The constitution is just some stuff some dudes wrote. It is not literally the holy word from Gods in human form that once were gracious enough to walk the earth. There is no reason to treat it with the status it has.
In our contemporary world, you can do two things at university: gain knowledge by studying and acquire prestige by graduating. Some people are there for the first, others for the second. For the people who are there for the second reason the degree is nothing more than a leg-up in the hiring process afterwards. This have created a large number of college educated people who, for the purposes of their jobs, don't need to be. The fact that there exist a large number of jobs that don't require a college degree for knowledge-related reasons doesn't entail that there exist a large number of jobs that don't require a college degree for prestige-related reasons. In other words, the conclusions drawn in TFA communicate precisely no information at all.
Your post is self-defeating. First you claim no one is an authority on what he or she knows, then you claim to know something (namely, what I and another poster have and have not thought about).
Also, speaking as an expert, here is some advice. The problem with skepticism is that you have to let go of it sometime, otherwise you never stop wondering about whether it is true or not that you have hands (or are a brain in a vat, or are subjected to the whims of an Evil Genius, or live in the matrix, etc.). Learn from Descartes failure.
500 years is not enough time to properly determine how climates develop, but 10 years is?
Additionally, the effect of CO2 on the climate is cumulative, and climate changes slowly. The last ten years of emissions pales in comparison to the stretch of time from now back to the start of the industrial revolution.
Because the debate has been politized by people with money on the line. They have a vested interest in claiming that global warming is not caused by humans, which is, as you point out, patently retarded. But there is another problem in addition to that: because the debate has been so politicized, sometimes the science gets sucked into the shit-slinging as well, and when that happens it leads to bad science, which is a legitimate concern. The problem with bad science is that it can be attacked by legitimate scientists, which the Oil Barons can then use to say "look! look! the science isn't settled! We're right!" even though the science very clearly is settled and they're not right at all.
Basically the global warming 'debate' is such a clusterfuck because the pro-oil lobby can spin it any way they want because the public in general doesn't understand how the scientific process works. That's what leads to situations where there are 10,000 studies claiming anthropogenic global warming is real for every 2 studies that claim it isn't on the one hand, and the public at large thinking the debate isn't settled on the other.
"and which can fly" doesn't sound as poetic though!
Re:Well, thats a bummer.
on
The Graffiti Drone
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
No, the magic has moved from the person willing to risk his life to the team of persons intelligent enough to create a machine that is controllable from a distance and not beholden to the laws of gravity.
Slashdot Mirror
seem to me to be two separate things. Statistics tells you what happens when. Understanding tells you why things happen when they do. Statistics can give you data, but not reasons. Understanding requires both. Even with all the data in the world, we're still going to need some kind of interpretative framework to make sense of it all, and creating that framework is the one thing Big Data doesn't make easier.
It's gotten nothing but shit every day for 30 years and it still works just as well as when I first got it.
Oh my god, I've cracked the code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why do words, suddenly appear
Every time, Bennett's here?
Just like me
you long to be
free from this
But my imagination never suffers from bad actors, dumb dialogue or terrible cgi. The point of movies, tv shows and especially books is not that they make it easier to imagine, but that they can show you things you wouldn't have thought of by yourself, which is not applicable in the emo-glasses situation.
Why would anyone interpret simulated expressions as genuine other than to delude themselves? And if you're willing to delude yourself, you could also just interpret apathy as caring. I don't understand how this is supposed to work.
The release date of Skyrim?
They could also write in that if I click 'like' on a cereal facebook page I would have to kill myself, but that doesn't make it legally binding.
The constitution is just some stuff some dudes wrote. It is not literally the holy word from Gods in human form that once were gracious enough to walk the earth. There is no reason to treat it with the status it has.
In our contemporary world, you can do two things at university: gain knowledge by studying and acquire prestige by graduating. Some people are there for the first, others for the second. For the people who are there for the second reason the degree is nothing more than a leg-up in the hiring process afterwards. This have created a large number of college educated people who, for the purposes of their jobs, don't need to be. The fact that there exist a large number of jobs that don't require a college degree for knowledge-related reasons doesn't entail that there exist a large number of jobs that don't require a college degree for prestige-related reasons. In other words, the conclusions drawn in TFA communicate precisely no information at all.
I wish the other 56% didn't either.
The Glass hate started a couple of months before the Snowden leaks, so I don't think that's it.
I dream about the destiny of this movie, whether it will be the delerium I desire, or the death and destruction I despair it will be.
Google glass seems like a really cool technology to me. It's weird that I have to qualify that statement with "and I mean this unironically."
Are you some kind of moral degenerate that allows proper nouns in Scrabble or just a racist.
you're a moron. Don't trust liars who have been proven to lie and then continue lying. In fact you probably shouldn't trust liars in general.
Your post is self-defeating. First you claim no one is an authority on what he or she knows, then you claim to know something (namely, what I and another poster have and have not thought about).
Also, speaking as an expert, here is some advice. The problem with skepticism is that you have to let go of it sometime, otherwise you never stop wondering about whether it is true or not that you have hands (or are a brain in a vat, or are subjected to the whims of an Evil Genius, or live in the matrix, etc.). Learn from Descartes failure.
Equating science with faith is the new Godwin.
500 years is not enough time to properly determine how climates develop, but 10 years is?
Additionally, the effect of CO2 on the climate is cumulative, and climate changes slowly. The last ten years of emissions pales in comparison to the stretch of time from now back to the start of the industrial revolution.
Because the debate has been politized by people with money on the line. They have a vested interest in claiming that global warming is not caused by humans, which is, as you point out, patently retarded. But there is another problem in addition to that: because the debate has been so politicized, sometimes the science gets sucked into the shit-slinging as well, and when that happens it leads to bad science, which is a legitimate concern. The problem with bad science is that it can be attacked by legitimate scientists, which the Oil Barons can then use to say "look! look! the science isn't settled! We're right!" even though the science very clearly is settled and they're not right at all.
Basically the global warming 'debate' is such a clusterfuck because the pro-oil lobby can spin it any way they want because the public in general doesn't understand how the scientific process works. That's what leads to situations where there are 10,000 studies claiming anthropogenic global warming is real for every 2 studies that claim it isn't on the one hand, and the public at large thinking the debate isn't settled on the other.
in the slightest. It's like saying "In a movie theatre images are projected onto a screen, similar to the eye."
The elections have nothing to do with informed decision making. Your news media has made sure of that.
Yes, they're not going to be designing algorithms, but there is plenty of grunt work to do too. There is a reason the term 'computer janitor' exists.
"and which can fly" doesn't sound as poetic though!
No, the magic has moved from the person willing to risk his life to the team of persons intelligent enough to create a machine that is controllable from a distance and not beholden to the laws of gravity.