There are better ways to conclude that some people don't like Bill. Pie throwers like throwing pies at people who act important, and who think they're important. Or something like that. It's an exciting hobby. An extreme sport.
They probably have wet dreams about smacking a pie in Bush's face, and surviving it.
So you have this website , and they say it looks ok. Then you go watch and nothing there. Some people call this the slashdot effect.
Someone is bending spoons with sheer brain power. But each time you look it does not work, and he says "It sometimes fails it when you're slashdotting me".
Some experts will call slashdotting real. I have my own opinion.
What difference would proof make? The shroud would become a certified attribute of authoritativeness. A 'strong' relic to strengthen religion. Like an autograph. That doesn't make anyone change their minds. Well, not many.
That's all right, so I'm not getting my point across. Blame me. Rationality is a narrow concept. What happens is , upfront, the 'right' behaviour is called rational and a lot of other behaviour is called irrational. At the end of the discussion, a lot of behaviour is recognized as rational after all(though maybe based on a weak understanding of the situation). When that keeps happening, it's time to dump some words. But people don't have nominalist attitude with words, so they just 'try harder the next time'.
If the kid had opted for the 1 dollar, would he have been less rational? He would have stopped a ridicule that might pay heavily later. He might think that they would stop offering the choice and go for the certain gain. If he wrongly beliefs that the other kids will stop offering, is that irrational? If he at one point really thought that the big coin was worth more, was that irrational?
It's not as if the word has only been around since recently. It's a relic from a time when there was supposed to be one single right approach, waiting to be discovered.
Rationality is a very narrowminded concept. It's no wonder so much behaviour is then considered irrational. Maybe the concepts of rationality and irrationality are medioce and we should avoid using them altogether.
In your second experiment, people don't conform to the predefined model called 'rational' behaviour.
Suppose that you call how people handle the '$ in a bowl' experiment "thinking". Suppose the people don't just "learn" not to take the dollar, they decide it's time to postpone taking the dollar and go for the bigger gain. They use trust, risk assessment, values. They think. The thinking can be weak or strong, it can be faulty. It can take in account things that the experimenter did not consider.
There is another story of a kid being offered the choice repeatedly between 50c and a dollar, by older kids at school. This was in Australia, where the 50c coin is bigger. The boy chose the 50c each time, which was reason for the other kids to ridicule him. The teacher took the kid aside, only to find out the kid was aware of the value of the coins, and was in fact quite calculating. I don't know if kid make the right decision though.
In the first experiment, an unnamed factor could be , that the person decides it doesn't matter which image they pick and they can just follow whatever comes to mind first(which has been affected unconsciously). If you tell people "we've been messing with your preferences for images", their choices may be different.
There's a common idea that people buy Nike because they're 'influenced'. Another (overlapping) model could be that they're using stock market speculative logic: the value they attach to the sneakers depends on the value other people attach to them, that is 'resale' value, not (solely) what they consider 'intrinsic' value. The resale value is volatile, but not 'nonexisting'.
Pun intended. Agreed, it's a hoax. Just like with a wave in a pipe, what you push in on one side does not come out at the other side. A wave travels a long way but the material in the pipe just shifts a little bit. And the basic model of a tsunami is just water bungeeing to and fro a bit and ending up where it started. No body of water is displaced very far.
But if you think of general fluid dynamics, it is possible that a relatively small body of water travels a long way(many miles, not many thousands of miles). It's plausible that sea creatures surface after such an earthquake. They would surface in the middle of the ocean. And then there's sea currents.
This 'hatred' thing of the leaders of little countries is almost always just a propaganda description. Remarks that are used as proof are remarks that are only intended for national consumption. Most people at that level can put their own emotions aside if needed and look at their interests, or their state interests.
I suppose the US administration would find Chavez easy to get along with , if they thought it was in their interest. I suppose that, since the failed coup and the failed midterm election, they're becoming somewhat ambivalent.
Just to give a different reaction,apart from the ending, that sounds sensible. Our microbes have spent billions of years adapting, and some newcomer would start from scratch and jump right over them.
Maybe an alien microbe would not interact in any meaningful way with organisms that coevolved here. Apart from competition for basic resources maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
you only use it once.
There are better ways to conclude that some people don't like Bill. Pie throwers like throwing pies at people who act important, and who think they're important. Or something like that. It's an exciting hobby. An extreme sport.
They probably have wet dreams about smacking a pie in Bush's face, and surviving it.
So you have this website , and they say it looks ok. Then you go watch and nothing there. Some people call this the slashdot effect.
Someone is bending spoons with sheer brain power. But each time you look it does not work, and he says "It sometimes fails it when you're slashdotting me".
Some experts will call slashdotting real. I have my own opinion.
some may think 'stupid' + 'moderator' is a pleonasm. A redundant pleonasm.
What difference would proof make?
The shroud would become a certified attribute of authoritativeness. A 'strong' relic to strengthen religion.
Like an autograph. That doesn't make anyone change their minds. Well, not many.
Entered your password in order to post a comment here, didn't you?
Did it never occur to you to check an actual online dictionary?
To be perfectly honest, yes. But I don't want people to think I'm a sissy.
when you doubt between two spellings of a word, check the search results count in google. I've used that trick.
Then again, my idea of fun is to use google count for finding the words that get misspelt(google ratio with misspelled 5%) the most often.
I thought compatable was common, but i only get a 1% ratio there. Maybe there should be a category 'non native'.
Is conneXion considered an error? I like it much better than connection.
Just now i find out that there are lists , eg at most commonly misspelled words.
These millions of people will actually say a 'grendel' is a 'slot'(*)! This could be going in the direction of an x-rated movie?
(*) Ask anyone in Amsterdam, for example. Maybe ask it in dutch too.
After the Normans came, they all started picking up all those wussy french words.
I can point you to millions of people who can confirm that
That's all right, so I'm not getting my point across. Blame me. Rationality is a narrow concept. What happens is , upfront, the 'right' behaviour is called rational and a lot of other behaviour is called irrational. At the end of the discussion, a lot of behaviour is recognized as rational after all(though maybe based on a weak understanding of the situation). When that keeps happening, it's time to dump some words. But people don't have nominalist attitude with words, so they just 'try harder the next time'.
If the kid had opted for the 1 dollar, would he have been less rational? He would have stopped a ridicule that might pay heavily later. He might think that they would stop offering the choice and go for the certain gain. If he wrongly beliefs that the other kids will stop offering, is that irrational? If he at one point really thought that the big coin was worth more, was that irrational?
It's not as if the word has only been around since recently. It's a relic from a time when there was supposed to be one single right approach, waiting to be discovered.
Rationality is a very narrowminded concept. It's no wonder so much behaviour is then considered irrational. Maybe the concepts of rationality and irrationality are medioce and we should avoid using them altogether.
In your second experiment, people don't conform to the predefined model called 'rational' behaviour.
Suppose that you call how people handle the '$ in a bowl' experiment "thinking". Suppose the people don't just "learn" not to take the dollar, they decide it's time to postpone taking the dollar and go for the bigger gain. They use trust, risk assessment, values. They think. The thinking can be weak or strong, it can be faulty. It can take in account things that the experimenter did not consider.
There is another story of a kid being offered the choice repeatedly between 50c and a dollar, by older kids at school. This was in Australia, where the 50c coin is bigger. The boy chose the 50c each time, which was reason for the other kids to ridicule him. The teacher took the kid aside, only to find out the kid was aware of the value of the coins, and was in fact quite calculating. I don't know if kid make the right decision though.
In the first experiment, an unnamed factor could be , that the person decides it doesn't matter which image they pick and they can just follow whatever comes to mind first(which has been affected unconsciously). If you tell people "we've been messing with your preferences for images", their choices may be different.
There's a common idea that people buy Nike because they're 'influenced'. Another (overlapping) model could be that they're using stock market speculative logic: the value they attach to the sneakers depends on the value other people attach to them, that is 'resale' value, not (solely) what they consider 'intrinsic' value. The resale value is volatile, but not 'nonexisting'.
Pun intended. Agreed, it's a hoax. Just like with a wave in a pipe, what you push in on one side does not come out at the other side. A wave travels a long way but the material in the pipe just shifts a little bit. And the basic model of a tsunami is just water bungeeing to and fro a bit and ending up where it started. No body of water is displaced very far.
But if you think of general fluid dynamics, it is possible that a relatively small body of water travels a long way(many miles, not many thousands of miles). It's plausible that sea creatures surface after such an earthquake. They would surface in the middle of the ocean. And then there's sea currents.
you still want to know when she's uvulating..
On my mozilla i got an alert about a high vulnerability concerning java applets. Maybe that would occur on other browsers too?
anyway, good link. I'll patch the JRE
The end situation will be spam that gets past your filters but it will be so mashed up you'll have no idea what it is about.
in my case they're offering the original replicas.
I suppose that beats the offers you get
This 'hatred' thing of the leaders of little countries is almost always just a propaganda description. Remarks that are used as proof are remarks that are only intended for national consumption. Most people at that level can put their own emotions aside if needed and look at their interests, or their state interests.
I suppose the US administration would find Chavez easy to get along with , if they thought it was in their interest. I suppose that, since the failed coup and the failed midterm election, they're becoming somewhat ambivalent.
There, now you're doing it too!
Just to give a different reaction,apart from the ending, that sounds sensible. Our microbes have spent billions of years adapting, and some newcomer would start from scratch and jump right over them.
Maybe an alien microbe would not interact in any meaningful way with organisms that coevolved here.
Apart from competition for basic resources maybe.
The other guys just saw too many movies.
I'd think that usually, /.ed and quiet are the same thing.
Just jokes that smell funny.
Since the republicans dominate the rural areas, maybe i am going to be rich.
Can i still get a copyright on the word "backwatergate" ?
Or why do you think they bend over so far?