It is done in nearly every country. Being addicted to a substance doesn't necessarily remove your ability to consent. Furthermore, there are no doubt plenty of people consensually buying an selling drugs for business purposes and are not actually users of those drugs, despite this activity being illegal.
No, the "are you sure you went to college" part is ad hominem. The spelling errors are very much factual, non-debatable, and are not ad hominem attacks.
Actually the "are you sure you went to college" is an insult.
The pointing out of spelling mistakes (while factual) as a way to discredit an argument is an ad hominem attack along the lines of "This person's argument is no good because he is not intelligent"
When, not if, I call you an idiot that is an ad hominem attack, idiot.
It's only an ad hominem attack in the context of making/discrediting an argument, otherwise it's just an insult.
I'm not throwing stones. I didn't try to insult anyone (as you appear to be doing). i am just pointing out what I consider to be a juvenile debate tactic.
People can't get away with "not testing well" forever. Life is full of tests (both implicit and explicit). At some point "not testing well" is equivalent to incompetence. If you are super brilliant, but unable to summon this brilliance when it matters, what good is it?
Not to say that testing can't be improved. The benchmark for a good test is how accurately it reflects reality. It's not impossible to have good tests. I have taken many good tests in college. They are usually open book, and require you to provide something beyond what a google search could provide. I'd say that "not testing well" in this sort of scenario just means you are less well equipped for life.
I would say that it is possible to "not test well" for the SAT, given how detached from reality it is, except that it is also pretty easy, and most kids with good educations should be able to kill it, even without any specific SAT prep. The problem is dull kids doing well on the SAT through meaningless test preparation (i.e. prep to test well), which ideally wouldn't be possible with a good test.
The problem of Asians cheating is probably not as bad as the problem of Americans not even giving enough of a shit to even try cheating. If Asians represent the drive for success at any cost, Americans represent the lack of drive for success at all but the lowest costs. Asians are cheaters like how Americans are lazy moochers living off the wealth created by our ancestors. They are generalizations with a grain of truth.
My mom is Chinese (born and raised in Hong Kong). She has a much easier time differentiating Caucasian faces than Asian faces.
I have literally heard her say "All Chinese people look the same", when she failed recognize someone. I don't think she knows this is considered a racist thing to say. To her it is just reality.
I am not saying the example of my mom proves anything about whether Chinese faces are actually objectively more similar than Caucasian faces.
What I am saying is that the relative inability to recognize faces of a certain race or ethnicity, and acknowledgement of this, shouldn't be conflated with racism.
I might suggest saying something more like "Chinese people all look the same to me", thereby acknowledging the deficit of the subject, rather than making the statement a descriptive claim about the object (chinese people).
Decimal numbers (base 10 numbers) are different than numbers with a "decimal point" (real numbers).
You would not want to use floating point numbers to represent quantities which require absolute precision. (although floating point numbers usually can represent whole numbers as well as binary fractions with absolute precision.
In fact there are probably lots of good representations of money that use floating point numbers. What they lose in precision, they gain in flexibility.
You probably wouldn't use a float to represent $USD with whole numbers of cents (although you could to it without losing precision if you had to by using a float to store the whole number of total cents).
But for many representations of money, it's important to track very small fractions of cents (i.e. $46468464684648686868.4747 and $0.0000000000000223974), and this is quite impractical to do as a single integer. Often the ability to store values on very different scales is more important than having absolute precision in a very small range of numbers (e.g. 0 - 2^32 - 1).
Of all the things you should learn as a computer science student, remembering the way to define a floating point number in a particular language isn't really that important.
I suppose you are either an idiot or a cheater if you allegedly spent a lot of time programming in c++ and don't know what a float is, but hopefully your time was spent learning the concepts (hard) rather than specific language syntax (trivial).
Also no one uses floats anymore. You are supposed to use doubles. Even most 32-bit architectures often have 64-bit FPUs. There are still a few occasions why you might still use a float instead of a double, but if you don't know what they are then you shouldn't use it.
I have met lots of people who understand the theory of computer science, but can't actually make anything. I know way more people who know how to "code", but don't know any of the theory and therefore suck at developing software. Both skills are important, but it seems one skill is best learned by going to a university and the other is best learned from googling language tutorials.
In my experience, it measures the strictness of one's parents. My sister wanted to do better on the SAT and enrolled herself in a class. It was full of Asian kids who were forced to go to SAT classes on a Saturday by their parents.
I am a person who owes a great deal of my success to the pressure to succeed from my mother. I certainly don't under estimate the value of having a parent like this, but I don't think most people consider this a skill, but rather a circumstance.
I don't think measuring a child's parent's willingness to push them to success is a very good indicator of future success, but it's better than nothing.
Actually success in life is about excelling at skills that are in high demand. If you can manipulate complex topological shapes in a way that many people find desirable, then you will probably be successful.
If you are charismatic in a way that isn't in high demand, then you probably won't be as successful as the math guy.
I have plenty of charismatic friends who are unemployed because they have no other skills. They are fun to hang out with though.
That's like saying a good chemist, is one who can best trick his boss into thinking he is doing useful work.
A leaders job is to lead the group to as good an outcome as possible (i.e. it is the task that the leader was chosen to do)
A leader who is only good at remaining the leader, isn't a good leader, he/she is a good Narcissist.
A narcissist is a person who is obsessed with attaining power and prestige. Doing this well is what makes one excel at narcissism.
Plenty of people elected to be leaders are actually only good narcissists. This is a flaw in society, not a reason to change the definition of "leadership".
social intelligence is the real iq, the real true intelligence, and the most crucial and vital mental skill you can have in your life. the rest are pathetic sideshows. there are math professors who can't balance their checkbooks. see the problem?
First of all, balancing a check book is not social intelligence. Secondly a "math professor" is exactly the sort of person it would take to automate the balancing of checkbooks for society as a whole, removing one more tedious and ultimately unnecessary task from our responsibility.
No the SAT is not a good measure of intelligence, but it is not because it fails to capture social intelligence.
Einstein was bad at arithmetic. Most people misunderstand this to mean that he was bad at math. Nothing could be further from the truth. Math is for creative people, arithmetic is (now) for machines (thanks to those creative people).
Yes social intelligence is important to personal success like a working liver is important to personal success. Since it is exceedingly common, it is rightly ignored as a necessary component to success (like the near infinite number of other potential deficits).
Other forms of intelligence that are far less common in humans, are more widely recognized due to their rarity. It's supply and demand.
Why do we value genius in mathematics and physics, etc higher than social intelligence?
Why is the price of gold higher than price water per weight/volume/particle, even though water is essential to life and gold isn't? Why do gold panners keep the useless gold and throw away all the life sustaining water?
It's the same reason.
If half the people on the planet were math geniuses, then we wouldn't even need to teach it in school. Kids who flunked out of college would get dead end mathematician jobs for minimum wage.
But that's not how it is. Kids who flunk out of college still have enough social intelligence to deal with customers and take directions from a boss, and sense when other people are pissed. This skill is valued (i.e. they find jobs that actually pay money), it's just not highly valued.
you can't kill people to preserve resources and space. Even at our current growth rate there's not enough for everyone.
You can kill people for lots more reasons than that. And you can preserve resources and space in more ways than killing people.
Not enough food, not enough space, not enough medical care.
With more people, you will potentially have more doctors.
If — no, when — age reversal becomes a reality, who gets to live? And if everyone gets to live, how will we provide for them?
1. When age reversal becomes a reality, there is a good chance we will also no longer be limited to the natural resources found on our home planet.
2. Even before age reversal becomes a reality, we are going to run into the problem of lack of sufficient accessible resources, if we don't become more efficient in our use of resources. All we need is for the rate of increasing efficiency (i.e. decreasing per capita consumption) to exceed the rate of growth. It's not like efficiency can increase forever, but it can probably keep increasing for quite a while given how much we waste. In fact, our efficiency is what will probably be the single thing that most determines our carrying capacity of our planet and any future worlds we colonize.
3. Once we are able to reverse aging, we will have drastically increased our efficiency in terms of resources spent on training experts (i.e. the people who are best able to increase efficiency. Imagine no longer constantly losing our society's most intelligent people. Imagine what we could accomplish if we still had minds like Euler, Keppler, Einstein, Gauss, Newton, Laplace, Bohr, Feynmann, Faraday, Pauli, Tesla (and many many more) with modern knowledge.
4. If we reverse aging, decreasing resources per person, is only a problem as long as we retain our mortal (soon to be immortal) biological meat vehicles provided to us by evolution. Once we are able to comprehensively capture, and safely store our mental states, we will have not only true immortality, but we will have drastically lower resource requirements to exist.
There are many songs that simply have multiple parts (i.e. if you heard the parts separately you may not guess they were the same song). You also have "songs" like symphonies in which the sub-songs are meant to be played in order. This is similar to albums that are meant to be played as a whole. Then you also have music like Indian Classical Music which is typically 30 - 60 minutes long for a raga.
So yes, no one wants to be bored to death listening to the same thing for 10 minutes, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a level of continuity lasting hours that isn't enjoyable. And it doesn't have to be dance music.
Where we decide to demarcate song boundaries is often arbitrary.
In the past, songs were short to prevent listeners from switching channels if they heard a song they didn't like (because it would be over soon). Now not only can everyone be listening to a different song (i.e. they are no longer necessarily broadcast), people can simply skip songs they don't like. With streaming there is no longer this intense pressure to make short songs, so I predict they will be longer.
Except that by the time I get to vote in primaries, the nominees are often already chosen. The real way to have lots of choices is to live in New Hampshire and Iowa.
It is indeed like a runoff election that is executed very very poorly.
The winner take all system for awarding electoral votes has caused us to only have a few "swing states" that actually matter.
Not to mention the fact that the parties now control the debates (rather than a nonpartisan organization like the league of women voters). They get to decide who is allowed to participate in the debates. They often change the criteria in order to specifically exclude/include particular candidates.
If you are a 3rd party or an independent candidate, good luck getting anywhere near a debate run by democrats and republicans.
Although, if you can make a convincing argument that, had you not pirated the movie, you would still not have purchased it, then the damages due to lost revenue are actually $0.
Slashdot Mirror
It is done in nearly every country. Being addicted to a substance doesn't necessarily remove your ability to consent. Furthermore, there are no doubt plenty of people consensually buying an selling drugs for business purposes and are not actually users of those drugs, despite this activity being illegal.
No, the "are you sure you went to college" part is ad hominem. The spelling errors are very much factual, non-debatable, and are not ad hominem attacks.
Actually the "are you sure you went to college" is an insult.
The pointing out of spelling mistakes (while factual) as a way to discredit an argument is an ad hominem attack along the lines of "This person's argument is no good because he is not intelligent"
When, not if, I call you an idiot that is an ad hominem attack, idiot.
It's only an ad hominem attack in the context of making/discrediting an argument, otherwise it's just an insult.
I'm not throwing stones. I didn't try to insult anyone (as you appear to be doing). i am just pointing out what I consider to be a juvenile debate tactic.
People can't get away with "not testing well" forever. Life is full of tests (both implicit and explicit). At some point "not testing well" is equivalent to incompetence. If you are super brilliant, but unable to summon this brilliance when it matters, what good is it?
Not to say that testing can't be improved. The benchmark for a good test is how accurately it reflects reality. It's not impossible to have good tests. I have taken many good tests in college. They are usually open book, and require you to provide something beyond what a google search could provide. I'd say that "not testing well" in this sort of scenario just means you are less well equipped for life.
I would say that it is possible to "not test well" for the SAT, given how detached from reality it is, except that it is also pretty easy, and most kids with good educations should be able to kill it, even without any specific SAT prep. The problem is dull kids doing well on the SAT through meaningless test preparation (i.e. prep to test well), which ideally wouldn't be possible with a good test.
The problem of Asians cheating is probably not as bad as the problem of Americans not even giving enough of a shit to even try cheating. If Asians represent the drive for success at any cost, Americans represent the lack of drive for success at all but the lowest costs. Asians are cheaters like how Americans are lazy moochers living off the wealth created by our ancestors. They are generalizations with a grain of truth.
Also zombies...
All Chinese fingerprints look the same...
My mom is Chinese (born and raised in Hong Kong). She has a much easier time differentiating Caucasian faces than Asian faces.
I have literally heard her say "All Chinese people look the same", when she failed recognize someone. I don't think she knows this is considered a racist thing to say. To her it is just reality.
I am not saying the example of my mom proves anything about whether Chinese faces are actually objectively more similar than Caucasian faces.
What I am saying is that the relative inability to recognize faces of a certain race or ethnicity, and acknowledgement of this, shouldn't be conflated with racism.
I might suggest saying something more like "Chinese people all look the same to me", thereby acknowledging the deficit of the subject, rather than making the statement a descriptive claim about the object (chinese people).
Decimal numbers (base 10 numbers) are different than numbers with a "decimal point" (real numbers).
You would not want to use floating point numbers to represent quantities which require absolute precision. (although floating point numbers usually can represent whole numbers as well as binary fractions with absolute precision.
In fact there are probably lots of good representations of money that use floating point numbers. What they lose in precision, they gain in flexibility.
You probably wouldn't use a float to represent $USD with whole numbers of cents (although you could to it without losing precision if you had to by using a float to store the whole number of total cents).
But for many representations of money, it's important to track very small fractions of cents (i.e. $46468464684648686868.4747 and $0.0000000000000223974), and this is quite impractical to do as a single integer. Often the ability to store values on very different scales is more important than having absolute precision in a very small range of numbers (e.g. 0 - 2^32 - 1).
Pointing out spelling mistakes in this way is an ad hominem attack.
Of all the things you should learn as a computer science student, remembering the way to define a floating point number in a particular language isn't really that important.
I suppose you are either an idiot or a cheater if you allegedly spent a lot of time programming in c++ and don't know what a float is, but hopefully your time was spent learning the concepts (hard) rather than specific language syntax (trivial).
Also no one uses floats anymore. You are supposed to use doubles. Even most 32-bit architectures often have 64-bit FPUs. There are still a few occasions why you might still use a float instead of a double, but if you don't know what they are then you shouldn't use it.
I have met lots of people who understand the theory of computer science, but can't actually make anything. I know way more people who know how to "code", but don't know any of the theory and therefore suck at developing software. Both skills are important, but it seems one skill is best learned by going to a university and the other is best learned from googling language tutorials.
In my experience, it measures the strictness of one's parents. My sister wanted to do better on the SAT and enrolled herself in a class. It was full of Asian kids who were forced to go to SAT classes on a Saturday by their parents.
I am a person who owes a great deal of my success to the pressure to succeed from my mother. I certainly don't under estimate the value of having a parent like this, but I don't think most people consider this a skill, but rather a circumstance.
I don't think measuring a child's parent's willingness to push them to success is a very good indicator of future success, but it's better than nothing.
Actually success in life is about excelling at skills that are in high demand. If you can manipulate complex topological shapes in a way that many people find desirable, then you will probably be successful.
If you are charismatic in a way that isn't in high demand, then you probably won't be as successful as the math guy.
I have plenty of charismatic friends who are unemployed because they have no other skills. They are fun to hang out with though.
That's like saying a good chemist, is one who can best trick his boss into thinking he is doing useful work.
A leaders job is to lead the group to as good an outcome as possible (i.e. it is the task that the leader was chosen to do)
A leader who is only good at remaining the leader, isn't a good leader, he/she is a good Narcissist.
A narcissist is a person who is obsessed with attaining power and prestige. Doing this well is what makes one excel at narcissism.
Plenty of people elected to be leaders are actually only good narcissists. This is a flaw in society, not a reason to change the definition of "leadership".
social intelligence is the real iq, the real true intelligence, and the most crucial and vital mental skill you can have in your life. the rest are pathetic sideshows. there are math professors who can't balance their checkbooks. see the problem?
First of all, balancing a check book is not social intelligence. Secondly a "math professor" is exactly the sort of person it would take to automate the balancing of checkbooks for society as a whole, removing one more tedious and ultimately unnecessary task from our responsibility.
No the SAT is not a good measure of intelligence, but it is not because it fails to capture social intelligence.
Einstein was bad at arithmetic. Most people misunderstand this to mean that he was bad at math. Nothing could be further from the truth. Math is for creative people, arithmetic is (now) for machines (thanks to those creative people).
Yes social intelligence is important to personal success like a working liver is important to personal success. Since it is exceedingly common, it is rightly ignored as a necessary component to success (like the near infinite number of other potential deficits).
Other forms of intelligence that are far less common in humans, are more widely recognized due to their rarity. It's supply and demand.
Why do we value genius in mathematics and physics, etc higher than social intelligence?
Why is the price of gold higher than price water per weight/volume/particle, even though water is essential to life and gold isn't? Why do gold panners keep the useless gold and throw away all the life sustaining water?
It's the same reason.
If half the people on the planet were math geniuses, then we wouldn't even need to teach it in school. Kids who flunked out of college would get dead end mathematician jobs for minimum wage.
But that's not how it is. Kids who flunk out of college still have enough social intelligence to deal with customers and take directions from a boss, and sense when other people are pissed. This skill is valued (i.e. they find jobs that actually pay money), it's just not highly valued.
You can't tell people not to reproduce
You can
you can't kill people to preserve resources and space. Even at our current growth rate there's not enough for everyone.
You can kill people for lots more reasons than that. And you can preserve resources and space in more ways than killing people.
Not enough food, not enough space, not enough medical care.
With more people, you will potentially have more doctors.
If — no, when — age reversal becomes a reality, who gets to live? And if everyone gets to live, how will we provide for them?
1. When age reversal becomes a reality, there is a good chance we will also no longer be limited to the natural resources found on our home planet.
2. Even before age reversal becomes a reality, we are going to run into the problem of lack of sufficient accessible resources, if we don't become more efficient in our use of resources. All we need is for the rate of increasing efficiency (i.e. decreasing per capita consumption) to exceed the rate of growth. It's not like efficiency can increase forever, but it can probably keep increasing for quite a while given how much we waste. In fact, our efficiency is what will probably be the single thing that most determines our carrying capacity of our planet and any future worlds we colonize.
3. Once we are able to reverse aging, we will have drastically increased our efficiency in terms of resources spent on training experts (i.e. the people who are best able to increase efficiency. Imagine no longer constantly losing our society's most intelligent people. Imagine what we could accomplish if we still had minds like Euler, Keppler, Einstein, Gauss, Newton, Laplace, Bohr, Feynmann, Faraday, Pauli, Tesla (and many many more) with modern knowledge.
4. If we reverse aging, decreasing resources per person, is only a problem as long as we retain our mortal (soon to be immortal) biological meat vehicles provided to us by evolution. Once we are able to comprehensively capture, and safely store our mental states, we will have not only true immortality, but we will have drastically lower resource requirements to exist.
Yeah, fuck poor people
How do we get technology? Space Race How do we get a space race? Cold War
There are many songs that simply have multiple parts (i.e. if you heard the parts separately you may not guess they were the same song). You also have "songs" like symphonies in which the sub-songs are meant to be played in order. This is similar to albums that are meant to be played as a whole. Then you also have music like Indian Classical Music which is typically 30 - 60 minutes long for a raga.
So yes, no one wants to be bored to death listening to the same thing for 10 minutes, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a level of continuity lasting hours that isn't enjoyable. And it doesn't have to be dance music.
Where we decide to demarcate song boundaries is often arbitrary.
In the past, songs were short to prevent listeners from switching channels if they heard a song they didn't like (because it would be over soon). Now not only can everyone be listening to a different song (i.e. they are no longer necessarily broadcast), people can simply skip songs they don't like. With streaming there is no longer this intense pressure to make short songs, so I predict they will be longer.
Except that by the time I get to vote in primaries, the nominees are often already chosen. The real way to have lots of choices is to live in New Hampshire and Iowa.
It is indeed like a runoff election that is executed very very poorly.
The winner take all system for awarding electoral votes has caused us to only have a few "swing states" that actually matter.
Not to mention the fact that the parties now control the debates (rather than a nonpartisan organization like the league of women voters). They get to decide who is allowed to participate in the debates. They often change the criteria in order to specifically exclude/include particular candidates.
If you are a 3rd party or an independent candidate, good luck getting anywhere near a debate run by democrats and republicans.
They don't need to know you work for uber. They need to know how much you drive regardless of who you work for.
I don't know why anyone still develops in Aging Perl.
Although, if you can make a convincing argument that, had you not pirated the movie, you would still not have purchased it, then the damages due to lost revenue are actually $0.
What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren? Biden just seems kind of stupid to me. I would still take him over Hillary, but I doubt he could beat her.
It's a prerequisite for inventing the next addictive cell phone game.
You can't build a space craft if you don't know how airplanes work.