And obviously this article has provoked an emotional reaction in you, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the way you did. Which is ridiculous.
But the truth is that we're all lead by our emotions and without emotions we wouldn't be motivated to write at all or write about corrections that you think need to be made.
You know, when I think about it, the problem with a national ID card is that it gives away too much information to people who require it. Veryfew people really need to know your absolute identity. Usually, they just need to know, for instance, your billing address, or where you work, and so on. I'd hate to see the day where I can use my ID card to check out books at the public library. The library doesn't need to know my absolute identity, just a phone number if I haven't turned my books in yet, and a mailing address to bill me.
And, when you have a national ID card in circulation, then it is nothing for businesses and institutions to require them in order for you to get along with life.
Also your driver's license is a photo ID that is registered by the government. But it doesn't bother me that much, and most places will accept other forms of ID, though not a pet license:) Usually military service cards will work.
But that doesn't bother me as much as social security numbers being universally required. Here's a hint for anyone who isn't aware: You really aren't required to hand over your SSN to anyone who asks. When I apply for a job I write in that I'll provide my SSN after I'm hired. But whenever there's a form you have to fill out for some reason that asks for SSN, make sure you ask what that number is used for and whether it's really necessary. "Just for documentation purposes" isn't a valid reason.
Usually saying "Your religious beliefs are bullshit" is counterproductive to teaching.
This is true; however the main problem is that 'faith' is counterproductive to learning.
First, I assume you understand what hyperbole means and how it is being used in the post you're responding to as a rhetorical device. He doesn't literally want to call people's religious beliefs bullshit.
But, if the weight of the evidence shoes that a certain religious belief is false, or most probably false, then it isn't doing students any favor to hide that evidence.
Wrong. Confucius is religion. Lao Tzu is religion. Preaching ethics and/or living a life of mystical resignation doesn't, on it's own, make for philosophy. Philosophy is, at the very least, argumentative: it doesn't hold any truths as just obvious.
Now, it's possible to say that Confucius, Lau Tzu, and Jesus Christ all represent philosophers, but this use of 'philosophy' is in a much looser sense. But, in this loose sense of the term 'philosophy' it is no longer incompatible with religion.
Do you want to wear the astrophysics hat today or should I? I could probably do a couple paragraphs or so of plausible sounding nonsense. We'll still need someone else to edit the Wikipedia page.
It is if you innovate with cloud computing. Call it a "Green Cloud[TM]" if you will.
Heh. Heheh. Heheh. Heh.
Re:Not supposed to be dooms day yet.
on
LHC Flips On Tomorrow
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Are you willing to gamble the existence of the universe on that untested hypothesis? Yes?
Sure, you could reply to this post thinking that nothing will go wrong; but are you really willing to gamble the existence of the universe on this untested hypothesis?
See, that's the problem with this whole line of reasoning: the idea that as the conception of danger increases, the less risk we are allowed to afford. And since everything has some risk, there is, afterall, all kinds of things we don't know anything about; and for all you know responding to this very post may bring about the end of the universe.
But the problem is that any actual risk doesn't need to be demonstrated, and apologists are left with the burden of proving a negative: that running the LHC won't bring about the end of the universe. That's why this is a fallacy, but it works in the same way all scare campaigns work: it affects the primitive part of the brain.
I remember back when I was 13. It was so much easier to say, "I don't know how this got on the computer Mom! I was searching for math homework" or something:)
I'm not going to troll like the other guy, but you're making an unjustified assumption: that airport security are going to act on every positive, whether a true or false one. All it is is information, and nothing more. At times it could be useful information. For instance, lets say an x-ray scan of someone's bag contains something suspicious, the information from this shadow analysis might add information to how to react to it. Or lets say that a known terrorist is arrested at an airport. Then you could use this program to narrow down who in the airport could be an accomplice.
Of course, if the airport security manager uses this kind of information in the wrong way, or acts on every positive without regard to the accuracy rating, then you're going to have problems, and this might be what those airport security personel are responding to. You obviously need to have more than one kind of survelience system in place, and the more survelience systems you have the stronger your overall security because you have more data to work with.
You make a good point that for a large airport a 99% accuracy rate still has too many false negatives. But if you have two different survelience systems with 99% then your overall accuracy rate is 100%-(100%-99%)(100%-99%). Okay, this assumes that both systems recieve the same data and well, I'd actually be interested in any corrections you guys can make to this calculation as it's just off the top of my head. But I hope you get the overall idea that accuracy increases the more systems you have.
At least, that's what the debate is about. The blind faith people are afraid that, if this Darwin stuff is taught, that their kids may not end up being blind faith people. So, somehow we need to give these kids an education while keeping them in the blind faith camp.
Well...the base of the number system also has to be prime number. We're looking for the most prime-tastic number here. Base 2, 4, 8, 10, and 16 just aren't viable.
Slashdot Mirror
And obviously this article has provoked an emotional reaction in you, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the way you did. Which is ridiculous.
But the truth is that we're all lead by our emotions and without emotions we wouldn't be motivated to write at all or write about corrections that you think need to be made.
You are not Spock.
Yeah, it's not meaningless. It represents you uniquely.
You know, when I think about it, the problem with a national ID card is that it gives away too much information to people who require it. Veryfew people really need to know your absolute identity. Usually, they just need to know, for instance, your billing address, or where you work, and so on. I'd hate to see the day where I can use my ID card to check out books at the public library. The library doesn't need to know my absolute identity, just a phone number if I haven't turned my books in yet, and a mailing address to bill me.
And, when you have a national ID card in circulation, then it is nothing for businesses and institutions to require them in order for you to get along with life.
Also your driver's license is a photo ID that is registered by the government. But it doesn't bother me that much, and most places will accept other forms of ID, though not a pet license :) Usually military service cards will work.
But that doesn't bother me as much as social security numbers being universally required. Here's a hint for anyone who isn't aware: You really aren't required to hand over your SSN to anyone who asks. When I apply for a job I write in that I'll provide my SSN after I'm hired. But whenever there's a form you have to fill out for some reason that asks for SSN, make sure you ask what that number is used for and whether it's really necessary. "Just for documentation purposes" isn't a valid reason.
Usually saying "Your religious beliefs are bullshit" is counterproductive to teaching.
This is true; however the main problem is that 'faith' is counterproductive to learning.
First, I assume you understand what hyperbole means and how it is being used in the post you're responding to as a rhetorical device. He doesn't literally want to call people's religious beliefs bullshit.
But, if the weight of the evidence shoes that a certain religious belief is false, or most probably false, then it isn't doing students any favor to hide that evidence.
Wrong. Confucius is religion. Lao Tzu is religion. Preaching ethics and/or living a life of mystical resignation doesn't, on it's own, make for philosophy. Philosophy is, at the very least, argumentative: it doesn't hold any truths as just obvious.
Now, it's possible to say that Confucius, Lau Tzu, and Jesus Christ all represent philosophers, but this use of 'philosophy' is in a much looser sense. But, in this loose sense of the term 'philosophy' it is no longer incompatible with religion.
Well, maybe. They'll probably come up with some other bogus classification like mega planet or inert star or something.
Exactly. The tricky part is determining credibility, but that is exactly the sort of thing that spy agencies ought to specialize in.
Do you want to wear the astrophysics hat today or should I? I could probably do a couple paragraphs or so of plausible sounding nonsense. We'll still need someone else to edit the Wikipedia page.
Good times!
So does this mean that at the very center of the earth is an event horizon that nothing can escape?
Overall, if you look at not disrupting normal functioning of society, aren't we already pretty darn efficient as it is?
The problem is that we've run out of low hanging fruit and we're pretty much doomed until we can evolve to stretch our necks out like a giraffe.
It is if you innovate with cloud computing. Call it a "Green Cloud[TM]" if you will.
Heh. Heheh. Heheh. Heh.
Are you willing to gamble the existence of the universe on that untested hypothesis? Yes?
Sure, you could reply to this post thinking that nothing will go wrong; but are you really willing to gamble the existence of the universe on this untested hypothesis?
See, that's the problem with this whole line of reasoning: the idea that as the conception of danger increases, the less risk we are allowed to afford. And since everything has some risk, there is, afterall, all kinds of things we don't know anything about; and for all you know responding to this very post may bring about the end of the universe.
But the problem is that any actual risk doesn't need to be demonstrated, and apologists are left with the burden of proving a negative: that running the LHC won't bring about the end of the universe. That's why this is a fallacy, but it works in the same way all scare campaigns work: it affects the primitive part of the brain.
Sounds like a job for Anonymous!
I heard they have good memories.
I remember back when I was 13. It was so much easier to say, "I don't know how this got on the computer Mom! I was searching for math homework" or something :)
I'm not going to troll like the other guy, but you're making an unjustified assumption: that airport security are going to act on every positive, whether a true or false one. All it is is information, and nothing more. At times it could be useful information. For instance, lets say an x-ray scan of someone's bag contains something suspicious, the information from this shadow analysis might add information to how to react to it. Or lets say that a known terrorist is arrested at an airport. Then you could use this program to narrow down who in the airport could be an accomplice.
Of course, if the airport security manager uses this kind of information in the wrong way, or acts on every positive without regard to the accuracy rating, then you're going to have problems, and this might be what those airport security personel are responding to. You obviously need to have more than one kind of survelience system in place, and the more survelience systems you have the stronger your overall security because you have more data to work with.
You make a good point that for a large airport a 99% accuracy rate still has too many false negatives. But if you have two different survelience systems with 99% then your overall accuracy rate is 100%-(100%-99%)(100%-99%). Okay, this assumes that both systems recieve the same data and well, I'd actually be interested in any corrections you guys can make to this calculation as it's just off the top of my head. But I hope you get the overall idea that accuracy increases the more systems you have.
Simple:
One's a young "cool" alpha male who wonders at times about his counterpart.
The other is an older, larger gentleman in a business suit with glasses who is insecure about his lack of popularity and features.
I don't understand you though. What does the x86 architecture have to do with computers?
He's just mad because he was the one beaten to a pulp by an office chair.
Sure, some smart ass is going to ask me how he knew about what happened after he fell into the shark tank.
Obviously, the sharks told him.
Oh yeah :)
My bad. Didn't read the grandparent carefully enough :)
I'm surprised you didn't mention that Java is also a popular beverage as well as a major city.
To be fair C# is a musical note.
At least, that's what the debate is about. The blind faith people are afraid that, if this Darwin stuff is taught, that their kids may not end up being blind faith people. So, somehow we need to give these kids an education while keeping them in the blind faith camp.
Do you totally not get the "Hi I'm a Mac! I'm a PC!" commercials? ;)
He who can laugh at himself becomes invincible to insult.
Well...the base of the number system also has to be prime number. We're looking for the most prime-tastic number here. Base 2, 4, 8, 10, and 16 just aren't viable.