A lot of people who pay into their church do it to support the church (e.g. community building, which has a favorable statistical payoff) and the works of the church (e.g. feeding the homeless, because they care about others). I know very few who do it for any other reason.
That's not how it works. When someone makes a claim, they have to back it up, not the doubters. The audiophiles are making the claim that the more expensive cables create better sound. It's up to them to demonstrate this.
The skeptics make the claim that there's no way the expensive cables can affect the audio quality because the cables are digital. This doesn't require double-blind tests, or really any tests of any type, because you just have to show that the same data makes it out the other end with either cable, which is trivial to do.
You should still do that experiment double-blind. Otherwise you're just playing into the unscientific thinking.
Here are some sources for reading about bit error rates, and how they are dealt with on each side of a connection, rendering the interconnect (the cable) moot.
When financial articles say cash, they mean paying in dollars rather than one of the other options available to large corporations. Intel, for example could pay in:
Cash Stock Processors
at least... there are probably additional options.
Intel's cpus are so much faster than anything anyone actually needs to do, they need to understand how to make MORE programs like McAfee, not put them out of their misery.
Hardly any employers are really taking minor youthful indiscretions seriously. The ones that are are losing out competitively to the ones that don't, because they aren't hiring the best people. Unless you've done something quite surprising, you are going to be fine:
Talented, but drunk in college? Hired.
Talented, but dressed up stupidly in college? Hired.
Talented, but had sex in college? Hired.
Talented, but made a fool of yourself in college? Hired.
Talented, but murdered someone in college? Maybe not.
Right, just like publishing everything and hoping there are no consequences is foolish in the extreme. If the government is in the wrong place, reform it. But don't make a fool of yourself believing that 100% publication of all data is the answer.
Doritos wouldn't be allowed to, but only because food is an industry with special regulations designed to keep people from dying from consumption of the product.
And if you are conveniently located near a junction, you can sometimes get more than the advertised up-to speed. I had comcast 5mbps service and routinely got 30mbps.
Yes, unless you are in a profession with a duty to report you are safe in nearly every state. There are a small number of states with good samaritan laws that might apply to that situation, but I'm pretty sure they've never been tested.
You have both oversight and accountability. Oversight is the intelligence committee, fully empowered to review TS classification. Accountability... you can impeach any politician, and the military has worse penalties.
That some people feel like the process isn't working is a problem to be resolved by the democratic process.
How can a democracy exist if there is no one you can trust to lead?
Yes, at some point you have to trust them. I'd say that point is AFTER they present the facts to you, rather than BEFORE.
How can it exist if all of its soldiers are wiped out because the enemy has the truth of all your troop movements and plans?
Who's releasing plans and troops movements? These are after-action reports. If it harms us to release reports about what we've done, then so be it. If I hide essential facts from the police simply because disclosing them would make me look bad, I'm committing a crime. But if our government does it, its okay? We choose to accept those risks in the name of freedom and an open society. I'd rather lose justly, with honor, than win through secrecy and deceit. That used to be the American-way, but it seems more and more that people believe the end justifies the means.
Umm no... you are not committing a crime if you withhold facts from the police, at least not anywhere in the USA. Enjoy your new-found constitutional rights!
Right. There's a balance. You don't give everything away, and you don't make everything secret. Instead, you do something clever like elect smart people to make difficult decisions about what should be secret, and you live with whatever the best system you can come up with is (or try to improve it). But what is clear is that neither full disclosure nor total secrecy is best.
Well, simply because your ideas are missing a couple of hurdles:
First, if you can build a machine as intelligent as the human brain, you have to build and power billions of them to match humanity. Who says you can force your AI computer to be interested in advancing science?
Second, just because you can build one, doesn't make it cheap or compact. With our current attempts, we are building supercomputers at warehouse scale, and still need 10^4th or more additional capability. You can't make millions, much less billions of those, so there's a limit that way.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people who pay into their church do it to support the church (e.g. community building, which has a favorable statistical payoff) and the works of the church (e.g. feeding the homeless, because they care about others). I know very few who do it for any other reason.
That's not how it works. When someone makes a claim, they have to back it up, not the doubters. The audiophiles are making the claim that the more expensive cables create better sound. It's up to them to demonstrate this.
The skeptics make the claim that there's no way the expensive cables can affect the audio quality because the cables are digital. This doesn't require double-blind tests, or really any tests of any type, because you just have to show that the same data makes it out the other end with either cable, which is trivial to do.
You should still do that experiment double-blind. Otherwise you're just playing into the unscientific thinking.
I don't know, they have to bribe the audiphile magazines to give them the best reviews, which eats into the margins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim
If you can't see the parallels ... well, there is no uncovering the eyes of the willfully blind.
Or, feel free to correct the wikis.
Here are some sources for reading about bit error rates, and how they are dealt with on each side of a connection, rendering the interconnect (the cable) moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_error_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/public/july99/chang_2_0799.pdf
http://blog.lewan.com/2009/09/14/sas-vs-sata-differences-technology-and-cost/
But the gourmets can beat double-blind tests, whereas the audiophiles cannot.
Mormons are Christians to the same extent that Muslims are Christians.
When financial articles say cash, they mean paying in dollars rather than one of the other options available to large corporations. Intel, for example could pay in:
Cash
Stock
Processors
at least ... there are probably additional options.
Intel's cpus are so much faster than anything anyone actually needs to do, they need to understand how to make MORE programs like McAfee, not put them out of their misery.
Can soldiers whose lives are on the line, or afghan civilians who cooperate with us have an expectation of privacy?
But really, there is no privacy, only what you can keep secret.
Yes, I actually have no doubt that he committed no crimes whatsoever.
Sure, if by democracy you mean monarchy.
Depends on the job:
Needs a hacker? Hired.
Need someone smart? Hired.
Need a security clearance? Maybe not.
Hardly any employers are really taking minor youthful indiscretions seriously. The ones that are are losing out competitively to the ones that don't, because they aren't hiring the best people. Unless you've done something quite surprising, you are going to be fine:
Talented, but drunk in college? Hired.
Talented, but dressed up stupidly in college? Hired.
Talented, but had sex in college? Hired.
Talented, but made a fool of yourself in college? Hired.
Talented, but murdered someone in college? Maybe not.
Where are the genius web developers working? I ask because it seems like everything on the web sucks.
Right, just like publishing everything and hoping there are no consequences is foolish in the extreme. If the government is in the wrong place, reform it. But don't make a fool of yourself believing that 100% publication of all data is the answer.
Doritos wouldn't be allowed to, but only because food is an industry with special regulations designed to keep people from dying from consumption of the product.
And if you are conveniently located near a junction, you can sometimes get more than the advertised up-to speed. I had comcast 5mbps service and routinely got 30mbps.
This was the last piece of faith you had in humanity? I'd have expected this to be one of the first pieces to go.
Note to metamods: this post fell victim to an organized moderation attack.
Yes, unless you are in a profession with a duty to report you are safe in nearly every state. There are a small number of states with good samaritan laws that might apply to that situation, but I'm pretty sure they've never been tested.
You have both oversight and accountability. Oversight is the intelligence committee, fully empowered to review TS classification. Accountability ... you can impeach any politician, and the military has worse penalties.
That some people feel like the process isn't working is a problem to be resolved by the democratic process.
How can a democracy exist if there is no one you can trust to lead?
Yes, at some point you have to trust them. I'd say that point is AFTER they present the facts to you, rather than BEFORE.
How can it exist if all of its soldiers are wiped out because the enemy has the truth of all your troop movements and plans?
Who's releasing plans and troops movements? These are after-action reports.
If it harms us to release reports about what we've done, then so be it. If I hide essential facts from the police simply because disclosing them would make me look bad, I'm committing a crime. But if our government does it, its okay? We choose to accept those risks in the name of freedom and an open society. I'd rather lose justly, with honor, than win through secrecy and deceit. That used to be the American-way, but it seems more and more that people believe the end justifies the means.
Umm no ... you are not committing a crime if you withhold facts from the police, at least not anywhere in the USA. Enjoy your new-found constitutional rights!
Right. There's a balance. You don't give everything away, and you don't make everything secret. Instead, you do something clever like elect smart people to make difficult decisions about what should be secret, and you live with whatever the best system you can come up with is (or try to improve it). But what is clear is that neither full disclosure nor total secrecy is best.
Well, simply because your ideas are missing a couple of hurdles:
First, if you can build a machine as intelligent as the human brain, you have to build and power billions of them to match humanity. Who says you can force your AI computer to be interested in advancing science?
Second, just because you can build one, doesn't make it cheap or compact. With our current attempts, we are building supercomputers at warehouse scale, and still need 10^4th or more additional capability. You can't make millions, much less billions of those, so there's a limit that way.