Exact dosage is impossible, so how many civilian casualties are acceptable per knocked out assailant? Will you passively let people be killed by not using the gas, or actively kill a few to save more?
I don't understand how this situation can be interesting enough to dedicate newspaper articles to it over and over. It never changes. The answers never change. People arguing that theirs is the only correct one never change. Maybe condemning the actions of others of a different ethical persuasion never gets old? That almost has to be it. Everything else stays the same.
Why does Bennett Hassleton keep using/. as his personal blog, and why is he allowed to? I post this question every time he does a blog, and I've never received a proper answer.
pre-emptive: Can I find anything wrong with what you wrote? Yes, the fact what you wrote is displayed where it is.
Given the current state of psychology research, "when the results have been independently replicated and have been shown not to be statistical artifacts, cherry picking, or outright fraud" would be a good first step.
The issue is the balance between public safety and personal privacy. Denying the citizen of any democracy the right to encryption of their personal communication is not an appropriate response to the perceived threat to public safety that same encryption would bring.
Pakistan and India have been hostile since they first were separated from each other, but they're not so different!! Surely this gesture will make them realize this and they'll have no choice but to bury the hatchet, that's just how human psychology works.
People fear and then hate what they do not understand. If you're not interested in how the world works you're not gonna learn, and will just default to anger and scaremongering in your interactions with it, because emotions you do understand.
Yup. I thought numbering the questions I was answering would make that clear but I suppose I should have written "question 1:" and "question 2:" instead of "1:" and "2:" to remove all ambiguity.
Is the social capital gained by this move that valuable? Are the costs that minimal? When there are companies specializing in providing custodial staff at costs lower than google could feasible hire them, why does it matter how they are employed?
Having the property of "being a person who knows me personally" does not render you immune to being manipulated into making judgments you wouldn't otherwise have made by people who have made a career out of achieving just that effect. This is what lawyers do. That they didn't always is no reason to maintain the laws written in a time when they didn't.
No, that's not what I said. I want people to judge over me who have been judged to be capable of doing so by people who have spent their lives studying the basis on which judgments are and should be made. This does not rule out the judge judgers making decisions based on other criteria (such as political affiliation (though the effect of this can be mitigated by requiring meta-judgments to be performed by a committee) but it is a vast improvement over the current system.
This does not contradict anything I have said. Furthermore, if that's what juror selection etc. is for, it's doing a piss-poor job. And even if that's what it's for, it's not how it's being used. I have been dismissed from jury duty for being a phd student in an area relevant to the case, ie., someone capable of thinking for themselves.
The practical issue that you can't educate a jury about every possible form of bias and fallacy remains, however. Jurors, being regular people, will insist on using heuristics that have served them well in everyday life in judging the matter before them (even though those are not typically logically valid but based on induction and fuzzy logic). Lawyers know this, and can exploit those heuristics in obtaining a verdict.
The idea that justice can be obtained by being judged by a jury of your peers is based on the hidden premise that people who are equal to you in the way in which they are your peers are capable of rendering a fair judgment upon you. This premise is false. Not only are my peers easily influenced by spurious logic, they are also susceptible to all manner of emotional manipulation, subliminal messaging and whatever else. Justice is not rendered by the level to which one of the lawyers is able to influence these factors. Nevertheless, that is exactly how a majority of cases judged by jurors are played out. Being judged by a jury of your peers may have been a good idea 300-400 years ago, but now we know better. Why doesn't the law reflect that?
Slashdot Mirror
Exact dosage is impossible, so how many civilian casualties are acceptable per knocked out assailant? Will you passively let people be killed by not using the gas, or actively kill a few to save more?
I don't understand how this situation can be interesting enough to dedicate newspaper articles to it over and over. It never changes. The answers never change. People arguing that theirs is the only correct one never change. Maybe condemning the actions of others of a different ethical persuasion never gets old? That almost has to be it. Everything else stays the same.
That the consumer is not to take seriously the claim that the game will work at launch is completely unreasonable.
Why does Bennett Hassleton keep using /. as his personal blog, and why is he allowed to? I post this question every time he does a blog, and I've never received a proper answer.
pre-emptive: Can I find anything wrong with what you wrote? Yes, the fact what you wrote is displayed where it is.
More like Park Ho Li am I right.
I gave three representative examples, two of which were connected. I could dig up more links but why bother when faced with wilfull ignorance.
http://politicalsciencereplica...
http://www.nature.com/news/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04...
Given the current state of psychology research, "when the results have been independently replicated and have been shown not to be statistical artifacts, cherry picking, or outright fraud" would be a good first step.
I guess management is always retarded, even at google.
The issue is the balance between public safety and personal privacy. Denying the citizen of any democracy the right to encryption of their personal communication is not an appropriate response to the perceived threat to public safety that same encryption would bring.
Politics comes from politeia, which comes from polis (city) and a suffix meaning person. It has nothing to do with shouting down.
Pakistan and India have been hostile since they first were separated from each other, but they're not so different!! Surely this gesture will make them realize this and they'll have no choice but to bury the hatchet, that's just how human psychology works.
People fear and then hate what they do not understand. If you're not interested in how the world works you're not gonna learn, and will just default to anger and scaremongering in your interactions with it, because emotions you do understand.
That's not sympathy and understanding, that's memory.
If they were, you could be cured of any viral disease by looking at an odometer.
Nothing but the truth: 12 is divisible by 4
The whole truth: 12 is divisible by all real and imaginary numbers.
By stating nothing but the truth you can lie by omission. By stating the whole truth you can confuse your audience by focusing on irrelevant details.
(the interesting truth: 12 is divisible by 12, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1).
Yup. I thought numbering the questions I was answering would make that clear but I suppose I should have written "question 1:" and "question 2:" instead of "1:" and "2:" to remove all ambiguity.
That's a good answer I didn't think of. Thanks!
Is the social capital gained by this move that valuable? Are the costs that minimal? When there are companies specializing in providing custodial staff at costs lower than google could feasible hire them, why does it matter how they are employed?
Having the property of "being a person who knows me personally" does not render you immune to being manipulated into making judgments you wouldn't otherwise have made by people who have made a career out of achieving just that effect. This is what lawyers do. That they didn't always is no reason to maintain the laws written in a time when they didn't.
No, that's not what I said. I want people to judge over me who have been judged to be capable of doing so by people who have spent their lives studying the basis on which judgments are and should be made. This does not rule out the judge judgers making decisions based on other criteria (such as political affiliation (though the effect of this can be mitigated by requiring meta-judgments to be performed by a committee) but it is a vast improvement over the current system.
This does not contradict anything I have said. Furthermore, if that's what juror selection etc. is for, it's doing a piss-poor job. And even if that's what it's for, it's not how it's being used. I have been dismissed from jury duty for being a phd student in an area relevant to the case, ie., someone capable of thinking for themselves.
The practical issue that you can't educate a jury about every possible form of bias and fallacy remains, however. Jurors, being regular people, will insist on using heuristics that have served them well in everyday life in judging the matter before them (even though those are not typically logically valid but based on induction and fuzzy logic). Lawyers know this, and can exploit those heuristics in obtaining a verdict.
1: judges
2: law professors
The idea that justice can be obtained by being judged by a jury of your peers is based on the hidden premise that people who are equal to you in the way in which they are your peers are capable of rendering a fair judgment upon you. This premise is false. Not only are my peers easily influenced by spurious logic, they are also susceptible to all manner of emotional manipulation, subliminal messaging and whatever else. Justice is not rendered by the level to which one of the lawyers is able to influence these factors. Nevertheless, that is exactly how a majority of cases judged by jurors are played out. Being judged by a jury of your peers may have been a good idea 300-400 years ago, but now we know better. Why doesn't the law reflect that?
Offering incentives to solve problems is actually detrimental though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...