The biggest problem with your argument in favor of highly selective skepticism is that this testable: we can study the data and determine whether it really helps. The subject study on prayer says it doesn't help - if there's a signal in the noise, they can't find it. However, there is a a clear signal in the seatbelt data.
Okay, I should probably rephrase the whole thing. For your sake, if I had to restate, I would ask, how well were all participants filtered out? What kind of samples are we dealing with?
I was basically calling into question how the research was conducted, & accusing them of dealing with complex issues @ an elementary level. I tried to back it up, showing that you couldn't always boil things down to, "Did X happen? Then Y doesn't work!".
Your seatbelt analogy doesn't make any sense. It translates to "Prayer helps people as long as they don't get cancer. Thus we should keep praying," which is not exactly a convincing endorsement.
No, no, no. I'm all for testing whether prayer cures cancer, etc. The illustration wasn't supposed to carry over so much. You carried over the idea of the severity of the crash to the severity of the illness. You were only supposed to carry over the idea that there was another factor involved. In other words, the only part of the illustration that was supposed to carry over was the idea that there are more variables involved in each question & answer. The other fellows in the thread have already explained it, so I won't comment any further.
Your parable may mislead people into thinking that prayer is as powerful as seat belts.
I would argue that it is more powerful, but not necessarily more successful. My whole point is that just because there is failure, it doesn't mean that there isn't value in the action/activity. If enough people went over cliffs with safety belts buckled, then the success rate of safety belts would drop, right? Well, I think that we can agree that there are more factors than whether or not belts are buckled. Prayer is like that too. In fact most things are like that. Just because the switch is on, it doesn't mean the computer is working.
Now, do you know what I mean?
Also, bear in mind, that I did say that it was a crude illustration. If people can't see it for what it's worth, then I can't do anything about it, because there is only so much that I can do. I'll try to be clearer next time.
I would love to see a case in which it is as powerful as seat belts.
I wish that I could give you 1. Then I'd be able to put the whole discussion to rest, for everybody. However, when you are dealing with people, it's really hard to quantify them. God is a living being according to the Bible, so even though he may have a set flow chart for how he decides who to help, it may be so complex that everything seems random.
Let's use a down to earth illustration. Most people have managers over them. The workers may be consistent & fair the whole time of their employment, but funny things happen with people, & problems occur. Sometimes we get fired through no fault of our own. I guess you could argue, "Ah, that means God fires people unfairly!". Well, that's not the point of my illustration. My point is that the world is complex, & even though there is a specific reason for everything, it is too hard to predict the outcome, based only on a few variables. I would argue that getting God to heal people physically in a measurable way is possible, but it is difficult to do because there are so many factors.
Perhaps a better example is charitable giving. There are things that they can do to increase donations. However, does that guarantee that everybody will give? Does that mean that they will give more? Does it mean that organizations will need to implement the same techniques everywhere? I don't think that they need to implement the same kind of techniques everywhere because people give through other channels, in different cultures & contexts. However, it does help overall to use the same techniques.
Looking @ it from the relationship point of view, I don't think that he wants to be ignored just because he already intends to heal some1.
I hope that helps. I don't expect my words to win souls, but rather to give a solid understanding of why my point of view is very logical & valid.
Re:What exactly makes this /. newsworthy?
on
Praying Doesn't Help
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
the people who always believed in prayer are going to say "It doesn't prove anything"
I'd like to expand on that a bit.
The Bible never says that a prayer automatically translates to healing. God never promises a life of ease just because we believe. So it would be kind of like saying, "Seat belts don't help because when people drive off of cliffs, they die. Thus we shouldn't buckle up @ all.". It's a crude illustration, but hopefully it gets the point across.
As you said, this article is a troll. Therefore I rate this article as "-1 Michael".
The average user thinks their computer runs "Microsoft."
Well, if I asked you what your IP is, then would you know what I'm asking for? How could that be, even though there is no 'a', 'd', 'r', 'e', or 's' in the acronym? Is it simply because you are taught that that is the meaning plus it just what you are used to? Well if you can do that, then they can say that their computers run Microsoft, just as some1 else can say that their computers run Red Hat, Suse, Gentoo, or Debian.
Let's not forget that the government or whoever is almost forced to sell this limited supply @ pennies per whatever. Thus it becomes so cheap to not turn off unused appliances, creating waste, which has nothing to do with capitalism. When the companies are allowed to sell energy @ their own prices, then we will see capitalism.
I don't mind seeing safety regulations, etc., but that's about it.
This should be rated @ 1, 2, or better, because it is a testimony or an alert to what is happening in other countries. We need this kind of information. I'm not saying that the parent post is right. I'm saying that we should encourage these types of comments.
I've mentioned this before, but just in case you & others didn't read it, I'd like to repeat it.
I honestly think that capital punishment should be dealt out to spammers. Think about that for a second. People are used to debating about it in the context of rape, murder or other serious crimes. What makes this so different? They are literally breaking into our computers just to deliver junk that we don't want.
I would be offended if I had to unsubscribe from every spammer's list, but @ least it would be tollerable & easy enough to stay on top of things. However they aren't even allowing us to do that.
The way I see it, they are nickle & diming us every day. If we aren't allowed to defend ourselves @ their expense, then there is no real freedom. We are just slaves who are allowed to carry on a relatively normal existance.
...the reviewers should be obligated to explain why the book wasn't a 10/10. In many cases they do say why, but in this case I thought that 8/10 was very stingy considering the types of good compliments that he gave. He could have kept the same compliments & the score, if he just explained why he took off 2 points.
Spam is one of very few crimes in which it is dead simple to provide absolute proof of actual guilt.
For some time now, I've wondered if it is feasible to make all open relays illegal within a jurisdiction. For example, can the US make all American open relays illegal?
I understand that it will not stop spam, but every bit helps, plus it makes it easier to filter out spam when it does come.
It would work for the average person & the average worker. It's the front lines of companies that have problems. Maybe they can make a system where they have disposable addresses such as foo-sales@example.bar. I realize that this is easy to fake, but with more information coming in within each email, the filters will be able to tell which emails are most likely spam. After all, if 2 emails come in with the exact same text, but with different disposable addresses, then you'll @ least be able to filter it out & save time on the server. Companies can afford to filter on the server, & protect themselves that way.
Users can use challenge response systems. If I join a club, & they want my email address, I can give them an "open" address @ hotmail com. They can say, "Hey Eugene! It's us from the club.". That alone shows me that this isn't spam. I'm expecting an email, & they got my name exactly right, even though it isn't the same as the user name. If I want to keep in permanent contact, then I could send an authentication token or something like that.
The trick is to not have everybody use the same methods. We should spread out & try to save the most time.
Governments should focus on making open relays illegal within their own countries.
Just like the mailing list archives that cloak everyone's address "foo AT bar DOT baz".
I think that a partial solution is to speak about email addresses in a more casual form. For example, if my email address is foo@bar.biz.baz then I should tell people that they can contact me @ foo @ bar biz baz. You should have noticed 2 things.
Notice that there is no word, "dot", in there? That's because most people should already be able to figure it out on their own. If they can't then they shouldn't be using your time.
Also, did you notice that I used, "@", twice? That's because I use it as a part of my regular vocabulary. It consists of the same number of keystrokes, yet I end up filling the Internet with more "@" symbols, thus making it harder to find the real addresses.
Spammers could try to figure out what is an email address by searching for the top level domain names, but I'm sure that that will be harder to find as people begin to smarten up & start using much more casual domain names. Maybe they'll use the regular domain names & split it up into 2 sentences. For example, "You can contact me @ my work email address. The user name is blahblah. The company name is bizbaz.". From there, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
There are way too many ridiculously lazy people around these days.
I agree. I'm not making any attempt to make my email address obvious on my personal web site. I'll tell them how to form it, but they'll have to look around. My belief is that I'm not trying to be contacted @ that address.
I have to ask you though, can't they harvest mailto links like this? After all, if we can do it with a couple of clicks, then why can't the bots?
The computer lab is set up by downloading hard drive images from a server, allowing the operating system to be changed at will in only a few minutes.
I'm glad that you mentioned that. I think that we are about due for another reinstall right about now, because the hardware has kicked the bucket. I might try to implement something like this. It could save lots of time.
That is, if someone says they really like the product(s) of the company they work for, do you assume they really do like the product(s) or do you think that they're views are motivated solely by their income?
That's hard to say. You've asked a good question. I guess 1 of the things that I thought of after commenting was that it is hard for people to evaluate information. I believe that subconsciously the majority of us would rather talk about it with friends & see people discuss it in different contexts. When they are paid to discuss it, but don't mention it, then it bypasses natural safety checks.
I hate to use 9/11 as an example, but I think that I have to. Let's all be honest. What are the odds that some1 from China [with the standard genetic make-up] would hijack a plane? I'd say that the odds are pretty slim. That alone should allow them to go through the airports relatively unchecked compared to other people of other genetic make-ups. There's no reason to inconvenience the whole world. Is it possible that someone from China could hijack the plane? Of course, but based on historical records, & incentives, I would say that they are relatively safe. I suppose that it is going to be hard to draw a line, but as long as they draw a line somewhere safe, then some people will be less inconvenienced, which means a savings over all.
My point is that if we insist on looking @ everybody in the same way, then we bypass natural filters which help us in evaluating risk. Some people are riskier by nature due to their appearances. All people are risky. Some are riskier.
& so it is with commercials. When people sit there & talk about products pretending that they aren't deliberately paid to do it, then they are pretending to do it only for the sake of doing it, & thus they portray themselves as people who are more trust worthy, less risky, & more reliable.
I don't mind actors/whoever getting paid to do infomercials, commercials, & endorsements. I have a problem with them coming across as less risky than they really are. It's like a man saying, "Hi there. Would you like some candy? Then why don't you climb into the car, & I'll take you home?". There is nothing wrong with any of what he said. It's the entire context.
The rest of this isn't in response to you. It's just a response to the entire discussion.
A man may ask, "But Eugene, if you don't want to be lied to, then turn off the tv.". Well, I could do that. I could also turn off the radio. I could remove a lot of input into my life. That would totally isolate me. It would be better to fight for what's right, & try to make this place better. But even if it is best that I isolate myself, it is wrong for me to fight for the rights of others?
A man may ask, "But Eugene, what benefit do you get by fighting for the rights of others?". Well, I didn't know that I had to have benefits. Isn't my concern for others incentive enough?
Personally, I don't know how I feel... I'm not too stupid to realize that Coke pays for their American Idol spots... but I probably wouldn't have realized Jeff Probst was hawking Purina unless it was super-obvious... I guess that's the point though.
Yeah, this is all news to me too. I wouldn't have guessed that they are being paid to talk about it in casual conversations. Promoting movies & shows is understandable, & to be encouraged. However, to promote another product that you aren't associated with is like lieing, if you don't tell people that you are being paid. It bothers me that advertisers would be allowed to break down our natural defenses by hiding such information. It's sad, because I'm a big proponent of product placement.
Tell her to save her files before she starts, & tell her to never use, "Save As". When she saves a document for a 1st time, tell her to call you before she clicks okay. This way, you should be able to find it for her each time. I'm sure that she might find a way to confuse you, but I speculate that it'll be less often.
I hope that helps.
PS. I'm sorry to see that your comment got modded down. I wish that comments such as yours got modded up & locked so that they can't be modded down again.
...he's created a fear culture within his whole group, since everyone's going to know how Joe Slacker got caught, and assume that they're being spied on too. Productivity is about to drop, as everyone looks over their shoulder all the time rather than getting on with the job.
This is not effective management, it's very bad management. It's well documented that companies who treat their employees with respect generally get good results out of those employees in return, while companies that try to take advantage usually get back exactly the opposite. Here's a crash course in good management: the important word in "human resources" is "human".
Agreed.
I worked for this supervisor, stocking shelves. He really had enough spare time to walk up behind me every now & then, & ask me questions like, "What did you just do wrong?". After a month or so, I couldn't figure out why I was always so stressed out there. I attribute it to 2 things:
bad music over the speakers
the annoying supervisor; always minding my businessIt's not as if I slacked off, or reduced output on purpose, but I know that my productivity was always lower than it could be because he was always making sure that I opened boxes in a particular way, or stocked shelves in a particular. He was just a plain old jerk.
It costs the restaurant money in wasted food and preparation time, costs the delivery driver time and gas to make a round-trip for nothing, and is generally a Very Bad Idea.
I agree.
It's bad for the environment.
It's also like sending spam to the pizza makers. After all, you'd be offering them a money making opportunity, which would be a bloody lie.
Slashdot Mirror
I was basically calling into question how the research was conducted, & accusing them of dealing with complex issues @ an elementary level. I tried to back it up, showing that you couldn't always boil things down to, "Did X happen? Then Y doesn't work!".
Now, do you know what I mean?
Also, bear in mind, that I did say that it was a crude illustration. If people can't see it for what it's worth, then I can't do anything about it, because there is only so much that I can do. I'll try to be clearer next time.I wish that I could give you 1. Then I'd be able to put the whole discussion to rest, for everybody. However, when you are dealing with people, it's really hard to quantify them. God is a living being according to the Bible, so even though he may have a set flow chart for how he decides who to help, it may be so complex that everything seems random.
Let's use a down to earth illustration. Most people have managers over them. The workers may be consistent & fair the whole time of their employment, but funny things happen with people, & problems occur. Sometimes we get fired through no fault of our own. I guess you could argue, "Ah, that means God fires people unfairly!". Well, that's not the point of my illustration. My point is that the world is complex, & even though there is a specific reason for everything, it is too hard to predict the outcome, based only on a few variables. I would argue that getting God to heal people physically in a measurable way is possible, but it is difficult to do because there are so many factors.
Perhaps a better example is charitable giving. There are things that they can do to increase donations. However, does that guarantee that everybody will give? Does that mean that they will give more? Does it mean that organizations will need to implement the same techniques everywhere? I don't think that they need to implement the same kind of techniques everywhere because people give through other channels, in different cultures & contexts. However, it does help overall to use the same techniques.
Looking @ it from the relationship point of view, I don't think that he wants to be ignored just because he already intends to heal some1.
I hope that helps. I don't expect my words to win souls, but rather to give a solid understanding of why my point of view is very logical & valid.
The Bible never says that a prayer automatically translates to healing. God never promises a life of ease just because we believe. So it would be kind of like saying, "Seat belts don't help because when people drive off of cliffs, they die. Thus we shouldn't buckle up @ all.". It's a crude illustration, but hopefully it gets the point across.
As you said, this article is a troll. Therefore I rate this article as "-1 Michael".
Thanks for the clarification.
Get over it, & fix it for them.
Let's not forget that the government or whoever is almost forced to sell this limited supply @ pennies per whatever. Thus it becomes so cheap to not turn off unused appliances, creating waste, which has nothing to do with capitalism. When the companies are allowed to sell energy @ their own prices, then we will see capitalism.
I don't mind seeing safety regulations, etc., but that's about it.
This should be rated @ 1, 2, or better, because it is a testimony or an alert to what is happening in other countries. We need this kind of information. I'm not saying that the parent post is right. I'm saying that we should encourage these types of comments.
I've mentioned this before, but just in case you & others didn't read it, I'd like to repeat it.
I honestly think that capital punishment should be dealt out to spammers. Think about that for a second. People are used to debating about it in the context of rape, murder or other serious crimes. What makes this so different? They are literally breaking into our computers just to deliver junk that we don't want.
I would be offended if I had to unsubscribe from every spammer's list, but @ least it would be tollerable & easy enough to stay on top of things. However they aren't even allowing us to do that.
The way I see it, they are nickle & diming us every day. If we aren't allowed to defend ourselves @ their expense, then there is no real freedom. We are just slaves who are allowed to carry on a relatively normal existance.
...the reviewers should be obligated to explain why the book wasn't a 10/10. In many cases they do say why, but in this case I thought that 8/10 was very stingy considering the types of good compliments that he gave. He could have kept the same compliments & the score, if he just explained why he took off 2 points.
I understand that it will not stop spam, but every bit helps, plus it makes it easier to filter out spam when it does come.
It would work for the average person & the average worker. It's the front lines of companies that have problems. Maybe they can make a system where they have disposable addresses such as foo-sales@example.bar. I realize that this is easy to fake, but with more information coming in within each email, the filters will be able to tell which emails are most likely spam. After all, if 2 emails come in with the exact same text, but with different disposable addresses, then you'll @ least be able to filter it out & save time on the server. Companies can afford to filter on the server, & protect themselves that way.
Users can use challenge response systems. If I join a club, & they want my email address, I can give them an "open" address @ hotmail com. They can say, "Hey Eugene! It's us from the club.". That alone shows me that this isn't spam. I'm expecting an email, & they got my name exactly right, even though it isn't the same as the user name. If I want to keep in permanent contact, then I could send an authentication token or something like that.
The trick is to not have everybody use the same methods. We should spread out & try to save the most time.
Governments should focus on making open relays illegal within their own countries.
Notice that there is no word, "dot", in there? That's because most people should already be able to figure it out on their own. If they can't then they shouldn't be using your time.
Also, did you notice that I used, "@", twice? That's because I use it as a part of my regular vocabulary. It consists of the same number of keystrokes, yet I end up filling the Internet with more "@" symbols, thus making it harder to find the real addresses.
Spammers could try to figure out what is an email address by searching for the top level domain names, but I'm sure that that will be harder to find as people begin to smarten up & start using much more casual domain names. Maybe they'll use the regular domain names & split it up into 2 sentences. For example, "You can contact me @ my work email address. The user name is blahblah. The company name is bizbaz.". From there, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
I hope that helps someone.
I have to ask you though, can't they harvest mailto links like this? After all, if we can do it with a couple of clicks, then why can't the bots?
I hate to use 9/11 as an example, but I think that I have to. Let's all be honest. What are the odds that some1 from China [with the standard genetic make-up] would hijack a plane? I'd say that the odds are pretty slim. That alone should allow them to go through the airports relatively unchecked compared to other people of other genetic make-ups. There's no reason to inconvenience the whole world. Is it possible that someone from China could hijack the plane? Of course, but based on historical records, & incentives, I would say that they are relatively safe. I suppose that it is going to be hard to draw a line, but as long as they draw a line somewhere safe, then some people will be less inconvenienced, which means a savings over all.
My point is that if we insist on looking @ everybody in the same way, then we bypass natural filters which help us in evaluating risk. Some people are riskier by nature due to their appearances. All people are risky. Some are riskier.
& so it is with commercials. When people sit there & talk about products pretending that they aren't deliberately paid to do it, then they are pretending to do it only for the sake of doing it, & thus they portray themselves as people who are more trust worthy, less risky, & more reliable.
I don't mind actors/whoever getting paid to do infomercials, commercials, & endorsements. I have a problem with them coming across as less risky than they really are. It's like a man saying, "Hi there. Would you like some candy? Then why don't you climb into the car, & I'll take you home?". There is nothing wrong with any of what he said. It's the entire context.
The rest of this isn't in response to you. It's just a response to the entire discussion.
A man may ask, "But Eugene, if you don't want to be lied to, then turn off the tv.". Well, I could do that. I could also turn off the radio. I could remove a lot of input into my life. That would totally isolate me. It would be better to fight for what's right, & try to make this place better. But even if it is best that I isolate myself, it is wrong for me to fight for the rights of others?
A man may ask, "But Eugene, what benefit do you get by fighting for the rights of others?". Well, I didn't know that I had to have benefits. Isn't my concern for others incentive enough?
That hurt me to read that. I hope that they only used another partition as opposed to redoing the whole hard drive. Am I right?
Tell her to save her files before she starts, & tell her to never use, "Save As". When she saves a document for a 1st time, tell her to call you before she clicks okay. This way, you should be able to find it for her each time. I'm sure that she might find a way to confuse you, but I speculate that it'll be less often.
I hope that helps.
PS. I'm sorry to see that your comment got modded down. I wish that comments such as yours got modded up & locked so that they can't be modded down again.
I worked for this supervisor, stocking shelves. He really had enough spare time to walk up behind me every now & then, & ask me questions like, "What did you just do wrong?". After a month or so, I couldn't figure out why I was always so stressed out there. I attribute it to 2 things:
bad music over the speakers
the annoying supervisor; always minding my businessIt's not as if I slacked off, or reduced output on purpose, but I know that my productivity was always lower than it could be because he was always making sure that I opened boxes in a particular way, or stocked shelves in a particular. He was just a plain old jerk.
It's bad for the environment.
It's also like sending spam to the pizza makers. After all, you'd be offering them a money making opportunity, which would be a bloody lie.
b