That reminds me of an interview with Gene Roddenberry where the cast for TNG was discussed. This question was asked when it came to casting Patrick Stewart to be the new captain: "Surely by the 24th century, they would have found a cure for male pattern baldness."
To which he apparently answered: "No, by the 24th century, no one will care."
Granted, they were talking about the 24th century, but I think the sentiment applies here as well.
Well, the article does state that these tendencies have been there for a long time. The main point is that the possibilities of internet combined with the comfortable, intellectual laziness of people apparently exacerbates these issues.
For example when you look through online communities you see steaming rage about SJW, MRA, alt-right, communists, BLM, LGBTx, feminism, veganism, religious extremism as in Jihadists, Christians evangelists, militant atheists and what not. And all of these are portrayed to be very serious things, spelling destruction by threatening the way of life as you know it. But if you compare it to what happens in the actual world around you, in cities on the streets and so forth and judge people by their actions, you'll find a rather different picture. The conclusion that contemporary usage social media serves to distort our perception in a negative way does not seem to be off.
It certainly can be used that way. We've had a very similar project in the lab I'm working in. Fibre-optics embedded in roads and bridges using Bragg gratings to measure the magnitude by which the fibre is stretched or clinched in all three dimensions. Of course this also means that it can be used as a microphone to some degree and also as a thermometer. The principle is sound and at least in this configuration offers some accuracy.
Well, there's a documented and irrational fear of nuclear radiation in Japan. And there are also reasons why Japanese fiction rather depicts victims of radiation as destructive monsters (Godzilla and the likes) instead of super heroes like American fiction does for example. It may have something to do with the events that date back to the 1940's. As far as I know there's also a fear of people who have been irradiated, even if they themselves do not emit any radiation. Basically denoting them as 'genetically inferior' it creates a lot of societal barriers for them and makes it unlikely for them to ever have any children with someone Japanese in Japan.
So I'm not sure how useful it is to use them as a sample for anything related with radiation, one way or the other.
I don't know about USA, but EU also covers deception in advertisement.
In theory, yes. But when you watch ads on TV, hear them on the radio or see them on the internet you know that this isn't quite as accurate as some people would like it to be. In reality deception requires intent, which you'd have to prove in court. Something that is usually very difficult unless they were really sloppy with their 'artistic licence' in the ads.
The developers put a lot of work into it and didn't slack around when it came to quality control. And if you're willing to believe the numbers, it appears like people are willing to pay for outstanding quality. Who would have guessed?
Sure it may help a lot of people, but it's not certainly not a brain-machine-interface. It's also not a novelty as there were already consumer products on the market that essentially used the same technology, like the OCZ Neural Impulse Actuator, which had people make faces (muscle movement) to translate into computer inputs. But it certainly appears like this technology has come a long way since then.
Yes, the corporation could have handled the situation in a way more elaborate manner. Even with Germany's rather strict employee protection laws a corporation can almost always find a valid reason to fire their employees if they don't do it without prior notice. I mean 'have to let some people go' because of a tight financial situation always seems to work, no matter how the actual situation is. So the real issue here is that they were pretty honest with their employee and stated the exact reasons for doing this. They probably did so without having had some legal counselling, which may have told them that being overly honest equals liability in these cases.
I'd argue that the vast majority of people still has access to some kind of phone. May it be their private cellular type phone, or a business cellular/landline phone at the work place. Employers aren't easily allowed to eavesdrop on conversations carried out by those devices.
With the other paragraph you're using a red herring. The main problem here is how that corporation obtained their evidence. The employee can still be guilty of what they did, it's just that the evidence the company collected can't be used in a court of law. The privacy laws here state that you can't simply treat everyone as a suspect and subject them to blanket surveillance in the hopes to catch someone doing something illegal. By doing this you violate the individual rights of all other employees. Here the measures taken are out of proportion, they don't fulfil the requirements for 'necessity', so the ends don't justify the means here. For pretty much the same reasons all attempts at mass surveillance by the government were shot down by the courts as being unconstitutional.
Yeah, you hear this logic a lot: "The biggest lie of all is the things they don't tell you."
It's unsound logic, if you consider that you can't possibly cover everything all the time. First and foremost, not mentioning something is not the same as deliberately withholding or hiding information. That is an allegation that requires some proof in itself. Even withholding information only really becomes a lie when the deliberate lack of specifics is meant to deceive by altering the 'big picture' of the topic at hand.
Yeah, it would be nice. But where do we draw the lines? Ban the 'soft' sciences that can't rely on hard evidence? It's not just that because so many hard sciences get politicized these days. Biology is often cited here because it teaches evolution. Biochemistry teaches about vaccines and so forth. Then there you have zoology, climate, weather and geoscience, which may confront people with politicized topics like fossil fuels, climate change, the rain forests, the rate of extinction in animals. Physics teaches about theoretical models like the age of the universe, our solar system, our planet, the big bang. Ideally kids learn about these things, how to acquire data, how to interpret it and ultimately how to draw their own conclusions from it. What if that conclusion corresponds with the political opinions of others, agrees with some but disagrees with others?
Depends on the milk. Regular milk already contains lactose and the volume alone dilutes the coffee. And especially the popular evaporated milk has a significantly higher sweetness. And no, not talking exclusively about premium coffee, of course in those cases it would be the worst waste. My question would be: If you don't like the taste of high cocoa chocolate, would you still buy it and eat with with sugar if other options are available? Each to their own. Some people may but it, perhaps because they don't like the other options.
I'm not talking about people drinking cappuccino, latte macchiato, or similar things. The analogy to what I'm observing with coffee would be buying one of those premium 90%+ cocoa chocolate bars and then drowning it in sugar. Or to use another analogy imagine serving a fine single malt, aged 18 years or more. And then people mix it with cola. Sure, people have their individual tastes, but it's kind of a waste.
I myself am more of a Picard than Janeway when it comes to beverages. But I do like the occasional espresso, black, with an extra glass of water, and nothing else. From what I hear everyone's sense of taste is a bit different. Were I taste a lot of different things, someone else's experience might be dominated by the bitter aromas. At least that's what I'm hearing quote often. For instance, a "supertaster" appears to have a heightened sensitivity for bitterness, often making them picky eaters and hating all those veggies they had to eat as kids. So why do they still drink coffee if they have to cancel the undesired tastes with copious amounts of sugar? My guess is as good as that of other comments here. I also think that they want to follow some kind of social norm of drinking coffee with colleagues.
So if CNN says that 3 plus 4 equals 7 then it's certainly bullshit?
I think there are appropriate expressions for the practice of inferring the truth value of a statement based on the source of the statement. The fallacies are called argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
Sadly not a new phenomenon and very popular among people who hind their denialism behind the label of scepticism. Simply refuse and deny everything without having to bother looking into the matter. When criticized it's also quite common that a false dichotomy is employed, where the only other option besides of denial is blind trust. It's a very convenient attitude, because it removes any obligation for critical thinking from the equation.
Children are starving in Africa. We should stop doing everything until that problem is sorted out!
VW is suffering quite a bit in the EU. For example they vowed to retract 8.5 million diesel cars in the EU. Legally, they have to retract about 2.4 million cars in the EU of which most are in Germany itself (~1.5m). Of course these things proceed slowly, just like the fines and sanctions that may apply to foreign companies. If you want some of the latest news know that Germany has just apprehended former Audi manager Giovanni P. Who is allegedly responsible for the use of the cheat-software in Audi.
Yes, apparently you are not understanding the problem. You compare the entirety of an industry with hundreds of competing individuals with one large social media conglomerate that has a monopoly according to German definitions. If there was such a single and huge beer brewery in Germany, controlling most of the market share, the cartel agency would be after them as well.
I didn't mean to say that pump water storage wastes water. But given the circumstances in California, they do not have that much water available during months with a lot sun hours. Storing seawater could work for the coastal regions if they find adequate space for it.
Pump water storage is a pretty solid technology as it can store massive amounts of potential energy. But like many things it only works properly under circumstances where you have an abundance water available and also have the space to store that water. And then again we're talking about California here, where you can get fined for wasting water during the rather frequent draughts. Well, at least that's what the internet tells me. I don't live actually there so your mileage may differ.
That is a distinct possibility. The proposed measures they have in mind are too broad, too vague, not warranted in my eyes. In the recent past the German government (Christian Democrats and Social Democrats) has tried to stifle the criticism of the refugee and immigrant situation in Germany and Europe. They accused some of the opposition, in particular right-wing (in German terms) politicians, of 'incitement of the masses'. But as far as I know they've always failed in court because their statements did not fulfil the requirements like inciting criminal acts like violence.
Making threats, i.E. declaring the intend to commit a serious crime against an individual or groups, is not protected speech in Germany. If you say that you'll kill someone and torture and kill their family if they do not comply with your demands, you're free to say it. But it'll most likely have consequences if they file charges and have tangible evidence.
Inciting criminal behaviour, like violence and arbitrary acts against individuals or groups, is not protected speech in Germany. If you say that immigrants and refugees are scum, vermin, parasites that have to be removed from the face of Earth. That they deserve to be burned alive and that everyone who helps getting rid of them is not a criminal but a true patriot. You're also free to say this, but it may have consequences if someone files charges and they have tangible evidence.
There are defamation in Germany, but the cases are notoriously difficult to prove in court if the defendant does not confess to their malicious intend out of their own volition. Otherwise it requires extensive evidence. For example if you ran a public smear campaign against an individual or a group, you might get in trouble. But posting something on facebook, twitter, instagram or the likes most likely won't have consequences.
These concepts are really not that hard to wrap your head around. Well, at long as it isn't firmly planted between your own butt cheeks.
Of course this means that all the required laws to persecute these things are already in place and have been for quite some time. So why make social media an extended arm of the government? Isn't it it kind of ironic to have social media delete 'evidence' in the first place and then punish them if they don't do it in a timely fashion? The me the plans make little sense. It makes me think that the politicians in question neither want to follow the actual law nor do they understand how modern technology works. They're more concerned with appearing to 'do something' in the eyes of the public, by providing some ostensible treatment of the symptoms, instead of looking for the root of the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What this article fails to convey is that there are current laws for hate speech in Germany except when it comes to denying WW2 events. The socialist parts of the current government wants to legislate such laws, but there are currently none.
There are laws against incitement of the masses. This is defined as calling for committing illegal or at least arbitrary acts against individuals, subsets or entire populations. Similar things apply to coercion or for personal threats of committing a crime, like assault or murder. Or in general if you declare the intend of committing a crime it can already get you in trouble.
And if you still think this is unique to Germany, try to make a death threat in the presence of an officer of the law and see if that is protected speech and allows you to get away with it so easily.
Are you familiar with the videogames from Telltale Games? They could be seen as one example for interactive stories. Some choices you make are only an illusion and don't really alter the outcome. Between seasons a lot of stuff can happen where you don't have any influence. And still due to the increasing complexity of the story later seasons get shorter and shorter.
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me of an interview with Gene Roddenberry where the cast for TNG was discussed. This question was asked when it came to casting Patrick Stewart to be the new captain:
"Surely by the 24th century, they would have found a cure for male pattern baldness."
To which he apparently answered:
"No, by the 24th century, no one will care."
Granted, they were talking about the 24th century, but I think the sentiment applies here as well.
Well, the article does state that these tendencies have been there for a long time. The main point is that the possibilities of internet combined with the comfortable, intellectual laziness of people apparently exacerbates these issues.
For example when you look through online communities you see steaming rage about SJW, MRA, alt-right, communists, BLM, LGBTx, feminism, veganism, religious extremism as in Jihadists, Christians evangelists, militant atheists and what not. And all of these are portrayed to be very serious things, spelling destruction by threatening the way of life as you know it. But if you compare it to what happens in the actual world around you, in cities on the streets and so forth and judge people by their actions, you'll find a rather different picture. The conclusion that contemporary usage social media serves to distort our perception in a negative way does not seem to be off.
It certainly can be used that way. We've had a very similar project in the lab I'm working in. Fibre-optics embedded in roads and bridges using Bragg gratings to measure the magnitude by which the fibre is stretched or clinched in all three dimensions. Of course this also means that it can be used as a microphone to some degree and also as a thermometer. The principle is sound and at least in this configuration offers some accuracy.
Well, there's a documented and irrational fear of nuclear radiation in Japan. And there are also reasons why Japanese fiction rather depicts victims of radiation as destructive monsters (Godzilla and the likes) instead of super heroes like American fiction does for example. It may have something to do with the events that date back to the 1940's. As far as I know there's also a fear of people who have been irradiated, even if they themselves do not emit any radiation. Basically denoting them as 'genetically inferior' it creates a lot of societal barriers for them and makes it unlikely for them to ever have any children with someone Japanese in Japan.
So I'm not sure how useful it is to use them as a sample for anything related with radiation, one way or the other.
I don't know about USA, but EU also covers deception in advertisement.
In theory, yes. But when you watch ads on TV, hear them on the radio or see them on the internet you know that this isn't quite as accurate as some people would like it to be. In reality deception requires intent, which you'd have to prove in court. Something that is usually very difficult unless they were really sloppy with their 'artistic licence' in the ads.
The developers put a lot of work into it and didn't slack around when it came to quality control. And if you're willing to believe the numbers, it appears like people are willing to pay for outstanding quality. Who would have guessed?
Sure it may help a lot of people, but it's not certainly not a brain-machine-interface. It's also not a novelty as there were already consumer products on the market that essentially used the same technology, like the OCZ Neural Impulse Actuator, which had people make faces (muscle movement) to translate into computer inputs. But it certainly appears like this technology has come a long way since then.
Soon enough there will be somewhat representative numbers. http://steamcharts.com/app/275...
Until then, no reason to get all worked up about it.
Yes, the corporation could have handled the situation in a way more elaborate manner.
Even with Germany's rather strict employee protection laws a corporation can almost always find a valid reason to fire their employees if they don't do it without prior notice. I mean 'have to let some people go' because of a tight financial situation always seems to work, no matter how the actual situation is. So the real issue here is that they were pretty honest with their employee and stated the exact reasons for doing this. They probably did so without having had some legal counselling, which may have told them that being overly honest equals liability in these cases.
I'd argue that the vast majority of people still has access to some kind of phone. May it be their private cellular type phone, or a business cellular/landline phone at the work place. Employers aren't easily allowed to eavesdrop on conversations carried out by those devices.
With the other paragraph you're using a red herring. The main problem here is how that corporation obtained their evidence. The employee can still be guilty of what they did, it's just that the evidence the company collected can't be used in a court of law. The privacy laws here state that you can't simply treat everyone as a suspect and subject them to blanket surveillance in the hopes to catch someone doing something illegal. By doing this you violate the individual rights of all other employees. Here the measures taken are out of proportion, they don't fulfil the requirements for 'necessity', so the ends don't justify the means here. For pretty much the same reasons all attempts at mass surveillance by the government were shot down by the courts as being unconstitutional.
Yeah, you hear this logic a lot: "The biggest lie of all is the things they don't tell you."
It's unsound logic, if you consider that you can't possibly cover everything all the time. First and foremost, not mentioning something is not the same as deliberately withholding or hiding information. That is an allegation that requires some proof in itself. Even withholding information only really becomes a lie when the deliberate lack of specifics is meant to deceive by altering the 'big picture' of the topic at hand.
Yeah, it would be nice. But where do we draw the lines? Ban the 'soft' sciences that can't rely on hard evidence? It's not just that because so many hard sciences get politicized these days.
Biology is often cited here because it teaches evolution. Biochemistry teaches about vaccines and so forth. Then there you have zoology, climate, weather and geoscience, which may confront people with politicized topics like fossil fuels, climate change, the rain forests, the rate of extinction in animals. Physics teaches about theoretical models like the age of the universe, our solar system, our planet, the big bang. Ideally kids learn about these things, how to acquire data, how to interpret it and ultimately how to draw their own conclusions from it. What if that conclusion corresponds with the political opinions of others, agrees with some but disagrees with others?
Depends on the milk. Regular milk already contains lactose and the volume alone dilutes the coffee. And especially the popular evaporated milk has a significantly higher sweetness. And no, not talking exclusively about premium coffee, of course in those cases it would be the worst waste. My question would be: If you don't like the taste of high cocoa chocolate, would you still buy it and eat with with sugar if other options are available? Each to their own. Some people may but it, perhaps because they don't like the other options.
I'm not talking about people drinking cappuccino, latte macchiato, or similar things. The analogy to what I'm observing with coffee would be buying one of those premium 90%+ cocoa chocolate bars and then drowning it in sugar. Or to use another analogy imagine serving a fine single malt, aged 18 years or more. And then people mix it with cola. Sure, people have their individual tastes, but it's kind of a waste.
I myself am more of a Picard than Janeway when it comes to beverages. But I do like the occasional espresso, black, with an extra glass of water, and nothing else.
From what I hear everyone's sense of taste is a bit different. Were I taste a lot of different things, someone else's experience might be dominated by the bitter aromas. At least that's what I'm hearing quote often. For instance, a "supertaster" appears to have a heightened sensitivity for bitterness, often making them picky eaters and hating all those veggies they had to eat as kids.
So why do they still drink coffee if they have to cancel the undesired tastes with copious amounts of sugar? My guess is as good as that of other comments here. I also think that they want to follow some kind of social norm of drinking coffee with colleagues.
Given how many people put a little bit of coffee in their cup of sugar, what's the big difference?
So if CNN says that 3 plus 4 equals 7 then it's certainly bullshit?
I think there are appropriate expressions for the practice of inferring the truth value of a statement based on the source of the statement. The fallacies are called argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
Sadly not a new phenomenon and very popular among people who hind their denialism behind the label of scepticism. Simply refuse and deny everything without having to bother looking into the matter. When criticized it's also quite common that a false dichotomy is employed, where the only other option besides of denial is blind trust. It's a very convenient attitude, because it removes any obligation for critical thinking from the equation.
Children are starving in Africa. We should stop doing everything until that problem is sorted out!
VW is suffering quite a bit in the EU. For example they vowed to retract 8.5 million diesel cars in the EU. Legally, they have to retract about 2.4 million cars in the EU of which most are in Germany itself (~1.5m). Of course these things proceed slowly, just like the fines and sanctions that may apply to foreign companies. If you want some of the latest news know that Germany has just apprehended former Audi manager Giovanni P. Who is allegedly responsible for the use of the cheat-software in Audi.
Yes, apparently you are not understanding the problem.
You compare the entirety of an industry with hundreds of competing individuals with one large social media conglomerate that has a monopoly according to German definitions. If there was such a single and huge beer brewery in Germany, controlling most of the market share, the cartel agency would be after them as well.
I didn't mean to say that pump water storage wastes water. But given the circumstances in California, they do not have that much water available during months with a lot sun hours. Storing seawater could work for the coastal regions if they find adequate space for it.
Pump water storage is a pretty solid technology as it can store massive amounts of potential energy. But like many things it only works properly under circumstances where you have an abundance water available and also have the space to store that water. And then again we're talking about California here, where you can get fined for wasting water during the rather frequent draughts. Well, at least that's what the internet tells me. I don't live actually there so your mileage may differ.
That is a distinct possibility. The proposed measures they have in mind are too broad, too vague, not warranted in my eyes. In the recent past the German government (Christian Democrats and Social Democrats) has tried to stifle the criticism of the refugee and immigrant situation in Germany and Europe. They accused some of the opposition, in particular right-wing (in German terms) politicians, of 'incitement of the masses'. But as far as I know they've always failed in court because their statements did not fulfil the requirements like inciting criminal acts like violence.
Making threats, i.E. declaring the intend to commit a serious crime against an individual or groups, is not protected speech in Germany. If you say that you'll kill someone and torture and kill their family if they do not comply with your demands, you're free to say it. But it'll most likely have consequences if they file charges and have tangible evidence.
Inciting criminal behaviour, like violence and arbitrary acts against individuals or groups, is not protected speech in Germany. If you say that immigrants and refugees are scum, vermin, parasites that have to be removed from the face of Earth. That they deserve to be burned alive and that everyone who helps getting rid of them is not a criminal but a true patriot. You're also free to say this, but it may have consequences if someone files charges and they have tangible evidence.
There are defamation in Germany, but the cases are notoriously difficult to prove in court if the defendant does not confess to their malicious intend out of their own volition. Otherwise it requires extensive evidence. For example if you ran a public smear campaign against an individual or a group, you might get in trouble. But posting something on facebook, twitter, instagram or the likes most likely won't have consequences.
These concepts are really not that hard to wrap your head around. Well, at long as it isn't firmly planted between your own butt cheeks.
Of course this means that all the required laws to persecute these things are already in place and have been for quite some time. So why make social media an extended arm of the government? Isn't it it kind of ironic to have social media delete 'evidence' in the first place and then punish them if they don't do it in a timely fashion?
The me the plans make little sense. It makes me think that the politicians in question neither want to follow the actual law nor do they understand how modern technology works. They're more concerned with appearing to 'do something' in the eyes of the public, by providing some ostensible treatment of the symptoms, instead of looking for the root of the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What this article fails to convey is that there are current laws for hate speech in Germany except when it comes to denying WW2 events. The socialist parts of the current government wants to legislate such laws, but there are currently none.
There are laws against incitement of the masses. This is defined as calling for committing illegal or at least arbitrary acts against individuals, subsets or entire populations. Similar things apply to coercion or for personal threats of committing a crime, like assault or murder. Or in general if you declare the intend of committing a crime it can already get you in trouble.
And if you still think this is unique to Germany, try to make a death threat in the presence of an officer of the law and see if that is protected speech and allows you to get away with it so easily.
Are you familiar with the videogames from Telltale Games? They could be seen as one example for interactive stories.
Some choices you make are only an illusion and don't really alter the outcome. Between seasons a lot of stuff can happen where you don't have any influence. And still due to the increasing complexity of the story later seasons get shorter and shorter.