the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society.
Fairly negligible. Sexist advertising is the symptom of sexist culture. Advertisers are very good at adapting to cultural expectations. Whether sexist culture is good or bad is a normative judgement, and hence likely to be contentious.
And the 'cure' in this case is almost certainly worse than the disease. Social engineering of this sort can only be justified through a paternalistic view of government; that it's the majority of us trying to keep us individually on the 'right' path. Which is dictatorship. Benevolent and majoritarian dictatorship, but dictatorship nevertheless. [1] And hence should be anathema to the true liberal; much worse than individuals making choices we personally disagree with.
[1] Blatantly plagarizing from Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom
People are most creative in find ways to be wealthier and more successful. Another way they're smarter than cats; if I was a cat, I'd want a pet Roomba to chase around.:)
RSA hasn't been broken (publicly at least). There's a decent chance the NSA has broken it, but I'm not too concerned about them in this case.
It's not password protection, it's RSA encryption. That means it's a practical impossibility to break it directly with today's tech; you would need months on any top500 supercomputer to have even a chance at it.
That said, my original comment was after being a joke...
Or rather, I hope you concluded they are about as self-interested as said housecat. Until housecats prove as adroit at maximizing personal income and success, I'm going to maintain the 'Job Creators' are much smarter.
No matter how many folks are standing around getting paid to scratch their asses the "Job Creator" hires more and more workers as his revenue goes up or taxes go down.
These people must believe that the rich are no smarter than your average house cat.
Not really. The truly stupid people think demand is completely inflexible.
I'm confused. How exactly did WW2 move money (or more usefully, wealth, as inflation/deflation happened a lot in that period of time) into the hands of the middle class? By destroying large amounts of infrastructure, property and capital? By killing off a sizable number of said middle class?
While I agree with your general point, I'm not sure public libraries are truly necessary for prosperity, particularly these days. I'm an avid reader, and haven't been in a library in years. If government stopped wasting (a very tiny fraction of) my money on public libraries, I'd be able to afford (a fractional part of) an extra book to read!
It is also a tragedy that someone who grew up in Russia has absolutely no idea whatsoever of what socialism actually is.
I think it's a tragedy that someone raised anywhere doesn't know what socialism is. I doubt growing up in an authoritarian country is likely to improve your chances of understanding it.
No, ideology is something you choose to believe even when reality conflicts with that.
I am only interested in what works for the most and reduces harm, I do not care about anything else.
And that, my friend, is an ideology. Your ideology. That normative standard is nothing that can be derived from reality. I believe the parent might disagree with it. I would only agree for a very specific definition of 'works for the most'. Ideology is the lens we see the world through. For a healthy person, it's an autofocusing lens, continually changing your perceptions of the world, and being changed by them.
Ideology is for children. In fact, the point of a lot of education is to give them a decent one. Is accepting progress 'natural'? Is demanding rationality 'normal'? Is compassion for the downtrodden 'admirable'? Each of these judgments depends on ideology. I hope our kids will be taught to answer yes to each of these, and maintain that ideology throughout their lives.
The simplest, most straight-forward answer is that it's better designed to achieve it's goal. Both programs are primarily used to fight poverty; to, as you put it, keep people from "[being] forced onto the street".
But one of them is funded by regressive payroll taxes, and provides benefits on the basis of age. The other one is funded by a progressive income tax and provides benefits on the basis of need.
I know which one might be worth supporting, and it isn't the first one.
I'd be the first to admit that morals can conflict. But it's just that; a conflict. It is, by itself, immoral to break your word. It is also, sometimes, immoral to keep your word, when you have promised foolishly. In such a dilemma, an ethics and moral courage are questioned, as they must choose which principle to break.
But in the end the fact will remain that you spoke foolishly and were compelled to break faith by a stronger moral injunction.
I do hope you don't think these groups are very well aligned. Certainly most of the wealthy elite are taxpayers, but the converse is far from the truth.
Certainly. In fact, every time I access my banks website, it hands a complete, encrypted copy of my transaction log, identifying information, etc. to me. And to my ISP. And to their ISP. And to umpteen servers along the way. If anyone cares enough about encrypted banking data, it's trivial to intercept. Fortunately, I'm the only one with the decryption key.
What you don't seem to understand is that this the whole point of encryption; that you can use completely public channels for securely sharing private info. It's core to online banking, etc.
Whatever. My point had nothing to do with it being an 'AI' really; I was just using AI in the generic 'computer player of game' sense. Expert system is probably a better technical description.
No more pointless than the original activity. Coding AIs is its own form of entertainment, and if you enjoy that more than minesweeper (Who doesn't really? Minesweeper? Ugh!) you've successfully entertained yourself for a significant chunk of time. And maybe improved your coding skills a touch.
There's graph of gasoline prices in the last 8-years; roughly half under Bush, half under Obama. I can't say that the average price is particularly different.
When was the last time you got the MPG that your car's manufacturer promised? If you answered anything other than "never", either you're lying or you live in some wacky parallel universe where all roads run downhill.
Actually in three different cars with manual transmissions I've driven. I commuted about 55 miles each way in primarily flat, highway driving, and could repeatably beat the EPA figures in Fall and Spring. The best was a Saturn SL2 with a manual, which could easily beat the manufacturer by 4-5 mph. Of course snow/ice/AC and all bets are off.
You know the same things affect endurance in standard cars as well, right? Windows-up vs. down, wind, air-conditioning/heating all have sizable effects on range, and you just get a feel for how it drives in your area. It's really estimating by neural network, but it works.
Of course, range is a bigger issue due to fewer fueling stations for a Tesla, but the estimation of range is actually easier (electricity doesn't vary in octane, for instance.)
It really depends on how high the standard is for a lie. Unambiguously incorrect statements are easy to come by:
"The entire north polar ice cap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade." [1]
Clearly not true; the percent gone was actually closer to 24%, and the worst-case projections only show the ice cap nearly disappearing in summer. OTOH, I'm not about to call them lies either; 40% would have been right two years earlier, and I can see forgetting to mention the detail about being ice-free only in summer. Furthermore, that was in a live interview; easy to make mistakes.
Perhaps more damning would be: "The melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland would result in a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet in the near future." (From An Inconvenient Truth)
Just no. Projections of sealevel rises of 20 feet tend to be looking at millenia-scale warming; for no conceivable definition of "near future" is that true. Worse, it's actually in a movie; presumably the script was edited with a finetooth comb.
You could argue it's still only twisting the data, as it is based on actual research; but it's based on claiming that research says something it really doesn't, which is roughly equivalent to Monckton's shenanigans.
Slashdot Mirror
the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society.
Fairly negligible. Sexist advertising is the symptom of sexist culture. Advertisers are very good at adapting to cultural expectations. Whether sexist culture is good or bad is a normative judgement, and hence likely to be contentious.
And the 'cure' in this case is almost certainly worse than the disease. Social engineering of this sort can only be justified through a paternalistic view of government; that it's the majority of us trying to keep us individually on the 'right' path. Which is dictatorship. Benevolent and majoritarian dictatorship, but dictatorship nevertheless. [1] And hence should be anathema to the true liberal; much worse than individuals making choices we personally disagree with.
[1] Blatantly plagarizing from Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom
Citation needed
People are most creative in find ways to be wealthier and more successful. Another way they're smarter than cats; if I was a cat, I'd want a pet Roomba to chase around. :)
AAAHHH, they let the magic smoke out of the AMD! Of course it stopped working! UNFAIR TEST! ~
RSA hasn't been broken (publicly at least). There's a decent chance the NSA has broken it, but I'm not too concerned about them in this case.
It's not password protection, it's RSA encryption. That means it's a practical impossibility to break it directly with today's tech; you would need months on any top500 supercomputer to have even a chance at it.
That said, my original comment was after being a joke...
Or rather, I hope you concluded they are about as self-interested as said housecat. Until housecats prove as adroit at maximizing personal income and success, I'm going to maintain the 'Job Creators' are much smarter.
No matter how many folks are standing around getting paid to scratch their asses the "Job Creator" hires more and more workers as his revenue goes up or taxes go down.
These people must believe that the rich are no smarter than your average house cat.
Not really. The truly stupid people think demand is completely inflexible.
I'm confused. How exactly did WW2 move money (or more usefully, wealth, as inflation/deflation happened a lot in that period of time) into the hands of the middle class? By destroying large amounts of infrastructure, property and capital? By killing off a sizable number of said middle class?
Wars are inherently destructive. Claiming they help the economy is the fallacy of the broken window.
While I agree with your general point, I'm not sure public libraries are truly necessary for prosperity, particularly these days. I'm an avid reader, and haven't been in a library in years. If government stopped wasting (a very tiny fraction of) my money on public libraries, I'd be able to afford (a fractional part of) an extra book to read!
That qualifies as one of those inventions that make you wonder why it had to be invented... The utility is quite obvious.
Yeah, trusting the Guardian to be responsible definitely does qualify as incompetence. But gross incompetence? You're taking things a bit too far...~
It is also a tragedy that someone who grew up in Russia has absolutely no idea whatsoever of what socialism actually is.
I think it's a tragedy that someone raised anywhere doesn't know what socialism is. I doubt growing up in an authoritarian country is likely to improve your chances of understanding it.
No, ideology is something you choose to believe even when reality conflicts with that.
I am only interested in what works for the most and reduces harm, I do not care about anything else.
And that, my friend, is an ideology. Your ideology. That normative standard is nothing that can be derived from reality. I believe the parent might disagree with it. I would only agree for a very specific definition of 'works for the most'. Ideology is the lens we see the world through. For a healthy person, it's an autofocusing lens, continually changing your perceptions of the world, and being changed by them.
Ideology is for children. In fact, the point of a lot of education is to give them a decent one. Is accepting progress 'natural'? Is demanding rationality 'normal'? Is compassion for the downtrodden 'admirable'? Each of these judgments depends on ideology. I hope our kids will be taught to answer yes to each of these, and maintain that ideology throughout their lives.
The simplest, most straight-forward answer is that it's better designed to achieve it's goal. Both programs are primarily used to fight poverty; to, as you put it, keep people from "[being] forced onto the street".
But one of them is funded by regressive payroll taxes, and provides benefits on the basis of age. The other one is funded by a progressive income tax and provides benefits on the basis of need.
I know which one might be worth supporting, and it isn't the first one.
I'd be the first to admit that morals can conflict. But it's just that; a conflict. It is, by itself, immoral to break your word. It is also, sometimes, immoral to keep your word, when you have promised foolishly. In such a dilemma, an ethics and moral courage are questioned, as they must choose which principle to break.
But in the end the fact will remain that you spoke foolishly and were compelled to break faith by a stronger moral injunction.
to the people who are paying taxes
the wealthy elite
I do hope you don't think these groups are very well aligned. Certainly most of the wealthy elite are taxpayers, but the converse is far from the truth.
Certainly. In fact, every time I access my banks website, it hands a complete, encrypted copy of my transaction log, identifying information, etc. to me. And to my ISP. And to their ISP. And to umpteen servers along the way. If anyone cares enough about encrypted banking data, it's trivial to intercept. Fortunately, I'm the only one with the decryption key.
What you don't seem to understand is that this the whole point of encryption; that you can use completely public channels for securely sharing private info. It's core to online banking, etc.
Whatever. My point had nothing to do with it being an 'AI' really; I was just using AI in the generic 'computer player of game' sense. Expert system is probably a better technical description.
No more pointless than the original activity. Coding AIs is its own form of entertainment, and if you enjoy that more than minesweeper (Who doesn't really? Minesweeper? Ugh!) you've successfully entertained yourself for a significant chunk of time. And maybe improved your coding skills a touch.
If I could, I would mod you up. That was very insightful. Thanks!
Obama tax? I didn't vote for him, but fact check.
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=us
There's graph of gasoline prices in the last 8-years; roughly half under Bush, half under Obama. I can't say that the average price is particularly different.
When was the last time you got the MPG that your car's manufacturer promised? If you answered anything other than "never", either you're lying or you live in some wacky parallel universe where all roads run downhill.
Actually in three different cars with manual transmissions I've driven. I commuted about 55 miles each way in primarily flat, highway driving, and could repeatably beat the EPA figures in Fall and Spring. The best was a Saturn SL2 with a manual, which could easily beat the manufacturer by 4-5 mph. Of course snow/ice/AC and all bets are off.
You know the same things affect endurance in standard cars as well, right? Windows-up vs. down, wind, air-conditioning/heating all have sizable effects on range, and you just get a feel for how it drives in your area. It's really estimating by neural network, but it works.
Of course, range is a bigger issue due to fewer fueling stations for a Tesla, but the estimation of range is actually easier (electricity doesn't vary in octane, for instance.)
It really depends on how high the standard is for a lie. Unambiguously incorrect statements are easy to come by:
"The entire north polar ice cap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade." [1]
Clearly not true; the percent gone was actually closer to 24%, and the worst-case projections only show the ice cap nearly disappearing in summer. OTOH, I'm not about to call them lies either; 40% would have been right two years earlier, and I can see forgetting to mention the detail about being ice-free only in summer. Furthermore, that was in a live interview; easy to make mistakes.
Perhaps more damning would be:
"The melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland would result in a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet in the near future." (From An Inconvenient Truth)
Just no. Projections of sealevel rises of 20 feet tend to be looking at millenia-scale warming; for no conceivable definition of "near future" is that true. Worse, it's actually in a movie; presumably the script was edited with a finetooth comb.
You could argue it's still only twisting the data, as it is based on actual research; but it's based on claiming that research says something it really doesn't, which is roughly equivalent to Monckton's shenanigans.
What people miss is that all (useful) energy comes from the Sun.
Correction: Nuclear energy does not come from the sun.