Plus, putting restrictions on who can learn the language seems like a really bad idea. It has to be the single fastest way to hasten the day when the language dies out, doesn't it?
It would be like making Star Wars 7 and not having Lucas remotely involved. It is just not a good idea period.
If you mean for us to conclude that either a Star Wars movie without Lucas and an LotR movie without Jackson would be cause for rejoicing, then just say that.
Not that I agree with you for a second on either point, of course.
First, unlike Jackson, Lucas is the progenitor of the Star Wars saga. While another director might have been able to get better performances from the cast, and another screen writer certainly could have written better dialog, a Star Wars film needs Lucas involved with the writing to be sure it really is Star Wars.
Second, unlike Lucas, Jackson did a really good job directing the LotR films. He did so many things so well that I'm willing to forgive the few things he hosed up (e.g. Faramir). I'd much rather have Jackson at the helm of the Hobbit than some player-to-be-named-later.
People who are good at math (i.e., slashdot) should be more skeptical of whether 1% is a low number.
Would it be acceptable if 1% of web pages had viruses? were phishing sites? were fishing sites? After all, server uptime is measured to five nines, not two.
To decide whether the rate of porn on web pages is high or low requires a baseline for comparison. For instance, "what percentage of all printed pages (i.e. books, periodicals, etc.) contain porn?" or "what percentage of all video footage (i.e. TV, movies, etc) ever published contains porn?"
When you're on the gravy train, you don't try to replace it with mag-lev. It's fine to be developing mag-lev quietly, but you ride the gravy train until it stops -- or at least slows down. There'll be time to get the world on-baord your mag-lev later.
Questions will determine the future characteristics of humans: (1) Are there groups with different characteristics that are not interbreeding? (2) If so, which of those groups is breeding faster?
It is of no relevance what characteristics people think they want in a perfect mate -- unless those desired mates are producing lots of children. Any small group of "desireable" individuals is unimportant unless they are breeding quickly.
Folks, if you keep pitbulls, you have a responsibility to train them, fence them in and keep them muzzled in pullic places.
An adult's responsibility isn't absolute; they are only required to take reasonable steps. That is, until the day someone is prosecuted for failure to keep their pitbulls off MySpace.
I tried to convert to Thunderbird. The user interface only worked if you used it the way the designers thought you would -- slowly and with a mouse. (It felt like going from WP5.1 to MSWord 1.0.)
Plus, the Thunderbird memory footprint is far larger. (WP5.1 to MSWord 1.0 again!)
And let's not mention that importing my mail data was a collossal pain in the patoukis. (Chorus, everybody!)
I will mourn this day. Though the apprentice Thunderbird has promise, it has killed the master before the teaching was complete.
Pretty soon, it's going to need its own Slashdot section. Over that period, Guitar Hero out-articled Apache (0), BSD (0), Geeks in Space (0), features (0), interviews (0), search (0), linux (2), Apple (5), science (5), IT (11), developers (12), and 6 of the 14 substections of Games.
Yup, they are so parallel that you may find yourself asking whether they are two separate people. The Firefly universe seems too grounded for a 'magical' tech like time travel, but their stories would fit.
Rest assured that we are only discussing those who are trying to gain advantage by means of saying things. So far as I know, no one has suggested that other methods that might be used to persuade (e.g., payment, coercion) qualify as "lies".
I understand that you will remain skeptical about whether the fellow with pockets falls under your definition of a "liar" until you know what his intentions were. The kid is having a hard time convincing you that Mr. Pockets is a "liar".
Meanwhile, the kid brought home the As and has nothing to show for it. Had Mr. Pockets said something objectively false, you could have concluded already that he was a liar (by either definition). Your skepticism demonstrates an important difference between objective falsity and subjective deceitfulness.
Do you consider the difference between the two unimportant? If there is a difference worth noting, then you are going to need separate labels to describe the two categories. I suggest that the former be called lying and the latter be called deceiving. What do you suggest?
If you're telling me something, even if it's "true", but the goal is decieve or take advantage of, then you're lying.
There are people whose goal I know is to gain an advantage over me. I know that they choose the things they say to deceive me. Call them what you will: enemies, competitors, adversaries, used-car salesmen -- whatever.
However, I can trust what some of them say, but not others. What is the difference? Not all of them are liars. If the honest ones say something, then I know the facts of the statement are true. All that I must do is divine decide how to react. With the liars, I also have to independently verify every fact first.
That is not a trivial difference. Treating all of one's adversaries as liars will not serve you well.
A few minutes ago, I wrote: . . . when a deceitful person tells a truth and you react to your disadvantage, you have a much harder time convincing bystanders that the fault lies with the speaker instead of with you.
You then wrote:
How did you deceive the kid? He shouldn't have the assumption you will have coins in your pocket as the null set is a subset of every set, right?:)
I'd be pleased if they could get this to work, but I hope it is based on more than a mere comparison to the consensus of postings on the internet. To say that consensus tends to lag dicovery is something of an understatement. Good luck finding an algorithm that can discern the truth, guys!
STATEMENT (1632 AD): The earth orbits the sun. AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (~1848): The means of production must be controlled by the workers. AUDIENCE SAYS: False. True. False.
STATEMENT (1854 AD): Cholera is caused by a germ. AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (1858): Man evolved from apes over millions of years. AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (1898): Remember the Maine. AUDIENCE SAYS: Revenge.
STATEMENT (~1979): Human activity is warming the earth. AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (1981): A reduction in taxes will benefit most voters. AUDIENCE SAYS: True.
STATEMENT (2003): Because of 911, the US should attack Iraq. AUDIENCE SAYS: War.
If you're telling me something, even if it's "true", but the goal is decieve or take advantage of, then you're lying.
Redefining "lying" this way isn't helpful. Lying means saying something that isn't true. A person who says a true thing with the goal of deceiving you or harming your interests isn't "lying" -- he's just your enemy.
Here's the difference: sometimes a lie can be proved false. When that happens, the liar has no cover, and you can convince other people that there are no circumstances under which they can trust his word.
On the other hand, when a deceitful person tells a truth and you react to your disadvantage, you have a much harder time convincing bystanders that the fault lies with the speaker instead of with you. This is exactly why skilled adversaries try never to speak a falsehood.
To be sure, a deceiver is every bit as much your enemy as a liar, but he is not a liar. A liar would be much easier to defeat.
Of course, NYC and Boston both have respectable winters, so they tend to invalidate the idea that weather is the issue in this migration. For whatever reason, half of everybody in the country lives in a coastal county.
Top wine producing countries (2005): France, Italy, Spain, United States, Argentina, China, Australia, South Africa, Germany, Chile.
Top wine producing states (2005) (rust belt in bold): California (90%+), New York, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Florida, Kentucky, Vermont, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania
What an artfully cherry-picked bunch of statistics!
That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india. True, as far as it goes, but those countries are 3-4 times larger.
Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology. Population density is worth at least a mention, no?
Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries. Since the US produces more waste per person than any country in the world, why set up the comparison against developing countries? The US produces more than twice the trash per person of the more efficient industrialized nations. Isn't that trouble enough?
US environmental impact is an important problem that shouldn't be undermined by spinning the statistics. The reality of the problem is more than bad enough.
If you're willing to tolerate the winters there's plenty of room up here!
People are funny. They tolerate earthquakes (west coast), terrorist attacks (east coast), hurricanes (south coast), and the eventual danger of sea-level rise (all coasts). They even tolerate 2-hour commutes and perpetual fights over clean water. But they won't tolerate winter?!
The advantage of a circular track is that the satellite can be gradually accelerated over a period of several hours. . . . With 300 launches per year, the team estimates the ring could put payloads into orbit for $745 per kilogram. If the launch rate reached 3000 launches per year, they calculate that would drop to $189 per kilogram.
1 year = ~8766 hours
How are they going to manage a continuous throughput of 1 launch / ~3 hours all year long (i.e., 3000 launches/year)? Heck, averaging even 2/day with setup time and period downtime (730/year) would be quite a feat.
Grandparent: "Given that people with no memories demonstrably fail to learn anything, including simple things like where they are or what day it is, clearly they help."
Thank you, thank you, thank you! That was my first reaction as well. The blogger challenge question was so very much better.
Parent: Without memories and learning, would our species really worse off? We would be unable to develop the technologies that will ultimately destroying our entire species, and we would share the more common characteristics of other (less burdened) species without these things. "Where one is" has absolutely nothing to do with memory. Where am I right now?
Arguably, long-term memory can carry harmful psychological baggage. However, without memory, not only would you not know the name of the place you are now, but you would not remember:
Where is the food in relation to you?
What is good to eat and what is not?
Or even, what does that tightness in your stomach mean?
On a species level, without technologies like fire and agriculture, this planet does not support 6.5 billion humans. You may have some difficulty explaining to the surplus that they are not better off with learning and technology. Further, without learning and technology, your life expectancy will fall back to about 1/4 of what it is now. Good luck acheiving true enlightenment and fulfillment in that time!
Let me be plain -- the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is blindness, as surely as if it were eternal night.
In every concievable way Dr Who is the longest running series. Even if you discounted the two recent Seasons of it.
Given that Dr. Who is also one of the oldest science fiction programs, under any definition of "longest running" that allows production gaps, Dr. Who will continue to hold the record for "longest running" forever -- so long as some one makes a new episode every 10 years or so.
There are 723 episodes of Doctor who...
That's the record worth talking about. A world-record is only interesting if there are other contenders that stand a reasonable chance of claiming it. Otherwise, all we're saying is that Dr. Who is the oldest.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, putting restrictions on who can learn the language seems like a really bad idea. It has to be the single fastest way to hasten the day when the language dies out, doesn't it?
It would be like making Star Wars 7 and not having Lucas remotely involved. It is just not a good idea period.
If you mean for us to conclude that either a Star Wars movie without Lucas and an LotR movie without Jackson would be cause for rejoicing, then just say that.
Not that I agree with you for a second on either point, of course.
First, unlike Jackson, Lucas is the progenitor of the Star Wars saga. While another director might have been able to get better performances from the cast, and another screen writer certainly could have written better dialog, a Star Wars film needs Lucas involved with the writing to be sure it really is Star Wars.
Second, unlike Lucas, Jackson did a really good job directing the LotR films. He did so many things so well that I'm willing to forgive the few things he hosed up (e.g. Faramir). I'd much rather have Jackson at the helm of the Hobbit than some player-to-be-named-later.
People who are good at math (i.e., slashdot) should be more skeptical of whether 1% is a low number.
Would it be acceptable if 1% of web pages had viruses? were phishing sites? were fishing sites? After all, server uptime is measured to five nines, not two.
To decide whether the rate of porn on web pages is high or low requires a baseline for comparison. For instance, "what percentage of all printed pages (i.e. books, periodicals, etc.) contain porn?" or "what percentage of all video footage (i.e. TV, movies, etc) ever published contains porn?"
When you're on the gravy train, you don't try to replace it with mag-lev. It's fine to be developing mag-lev quietly, but you ride the gravy train until it stops -- or at least slows down. There'll be time to get the world on-baord your mag-lev later.
Questions will determine the future characteristics of humans:
(1) Are there groups with different characteristics that are not interbreeding?
(2) If so, which of those groups is breeding faster?
It is of no relevance what characteristics people think they want in a perfect mate -- unless those desired mates are producing lots of children. Any small group of "desireable" individuals is unimportant unless they are breeding quickly.
Folks, if you keep pitbulls, you have a responsibility to train them, fence them in and keep them muzzled in pullic places.
An adult's responsibility isn't absolute; they are only required to take reasonable steps. That is, until the day someone is prosecuted for failure to keep their pitbulls off MySpace.
I tried to convert to Thunderbird. The user interface only worked if you used it the way the designers thought you would -- slowly and with a mouse. (It felt like going from WP5.1 to MSWord 1.0.)
Plus, the Thunderbird memory footprint is far larger. (WP5.1 to MSWord 1.0 again!)
And let's not mention that importing my mail data was a collossal pain in the patoukis. (Chorus, everybody!)
I will mourn this day. Though the apprentice Thunderbird has promise, it has killed the master before the teaching was complete.
Thirteen Guitar Hero stories since April?
Pretty soon, it's going to need its own Slashdot section. Over that period, Guitar Hero out-articled Apache (0), BSD (0), Geeks in Space (0), features (0), interviews (0), search (0), linux (2), Apple (5), science (5), IT (11), developers (12), and 6 of the 14 substections of Games.
Yup, they are so parallel that you may find yourself asking whether they are two separate people. The Firefly universe seems too grounded for a 'magical' tech like time travel, but their stories would fit.
On the Internet?!
I thought that was in Minnesota.
The term pretexting is really, really ridiculous.
Kind of like saying that a guy who has been held for 4 years without charges is a "detainee" rather than a "prisoner", yes?
Rest assured that we are only discussing those who are trying to gain advantage by means of saying things. So far as I know, no one has suggested that other methods that might be used to persuade (e.g., payment, coercion) qualify as "lies".
Let me elaborate.
I understand that you will remain skeptical about whether the fellow with pockets falls under your definition of a "liar" until you know what his intentions were. The kid is having a hard time convincing you that Mr. Pockets is a "liar".
Meanwhile, the kid brought home the As and has nothing to show for it. Had Mr. Pockets said something objectively false, you could have concluded already that he was a liar (by either definition). Your skepticism demonstrates an important difference between objective falsity and subjective deceitfulness.
Do you consider the difference between the two unimportant? If there is a difference worth noting, then you are going to need separate labels to describe the two categories. I suggest that the former be called lying and the latter be called deceiving. What do you suggest?
If you're telling me something, even if it's "true", but the goal is decieve or take advantage of, then you're lying.
There are people whose goal I know is to gain an advantage over me. I know that they choose the things they say to deceive me. Call them what you will: enemies, competitors, adversaries, used-car salesmen -- whatever.
However, I can trust what some of them say, but not others. What is the difference? Not all of them are liars. If the honest ones say something, then I know the facts of the statement are true. All that I must do is divine decide how to react. With the liars, I also have to independently verify every fact first.
That is not a trivial difference. Treating all of one's adversaries as liars will not serve you well.
You then wrote:Thank you for demonstrating the point.
I'd be pleased if they could get this to work, but I hope it is based on more than a mere comparison to the consensus of postings on the internet. To say that consensus tends to lag dicovery is something of an understatement. Good luck finding an algorithm that can discern the truth, guys!
STATEMENT (1632 AD): The earth orbits the sun.
AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (~1848): The means of production must be controlled by the workers.
AUDIENCE SAYS: False. True. False.
STATEMENT (1854 AD): Cholera is caused by a germ.
AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (1858): Man evolved from apes over millions of years.
AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (1898): Remember the Maine.
AUDIENCE SAYS: Revenge.
STATEMENT (~1979): Human activity is warming the earth.
AUDIENCE SAYS: False.
STATEMENT (1981): A reduction in taxes will benefit most voters.
AUDIENCE SAYS: True.
STATEMENT (2003): Because of 911, the US should attack Iraq.
AUDIENCE SAYS: War.
If you're telling me something, even if it's "true", but the goal is decieve or take advantage of, then you're lying.
Redefining "lying" this way isn't helpful. Lying means saying something that isn't true. A person who says a true thing with the goal of deceiving you or harming your interests isn't "lying" -- he's just your enemy.
Here's the difference: sometimes a lie can be proved false. When that happens, the liar has no cover, and you can convince other people that there are no circumstances under which they can trust his word.
On the other hand, when a deceitful person tells a truth and you react to your disadvantage, you have a much harder time convincing bystanders that the fault lies with the speaker instead of with you. This is exactly why skilled adversaries try never to speak a falsehood.
To be sure, a deceiver is every bit as much your enemy as a liar, but he is not a liar. A liar would be much easier to defeat.
Of course, NYC and Boston both have respectable winters, so they tend to invalidate the idea that weather is the issue in this migration. For whatever reason, half of everybody in the country lives in a coastal county.
Top wine producing countries (2005): France, Italy, Spain, United States, Argentina, China, Australia, South Africa, Germany, Chile.
Top wine producing states (2005) (rust belt in bold): California (90%+), New York, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Florida, Kentucky, Vermont, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania
I have long pondered where under the sun man should live and this answer was revealed to me: God meant for man to live where he can grow grapes.
It's that simple, really. If the grapes like the climate, so will we. And, if not, at least we will have wine.
What an artfully cherry-picked bunch of statistics!
That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india.
True, as far as it goes, but those countries are 3-4 times larger.
Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology.
Population density is worth at least a mention, no?
Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries.
Since the US produces more waste per person than any country in the world, why set up the comparison against developing countries? The US produces more than twice the trash per person of the more efficient industrialized nations. Isn't that trouble enough?
US environmental impact is an important problem that shouldn't be undermined by spinning the statistics. The reality of the problem is more than bad enough.
If you're willing to tolerate the winters there's plenty of room up here!
People are funny. They tolerate earthquakes (west coast), terrorist attacks (east coast), hurricanes (south coast), and the eventual danger of sea-level rise (all coasts). They even tolerate 2-hour commutes and perpetual fights over clean water. But they won't tolerate winter?!
How are they going to manage a continuous throughput of 1 launch / ~3 hours all year long (i.e., 3000 launches/year)? Heck, averaging even 2/day with setup time and period downtime (730/year) would be quite a feat.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! That was my first reaction as well. The blogger challenge question was so very much better.
Parent: Without memories and learning, would our species really worse off? We would be unable to develop the technologies that will ultimately destroying our entire species, and we would share the more common characteristics of other (less burdened) species without these things. "Where one is" has absolutely nothing to do with memory. Where am I right now?
Arguably, long-term memory can carry harmful psychological baggage. However, without memory, not only would you not know the name of the place you are now, but you would not remember:
Where is the food in relation to you?
What is good to eat and what is not?
Or even, what does that tightness in your stomach mean?
On a species level, without technologies like fire and agriculture, this planet does not support 6.5 billion humans. You may have some difficulty explaining to the surplus that they are not better off with learning and technology. Further, without learning and technology, your life expectancy will fall back to about 1/4 of what it is now. Good luck acheiving true enlightenment and fulfillment in that time!
Let me be plain -- the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is blindness, as surely as if it were eternal night.
In every concievable way Dr Who is the longest running series. Even if you discounted the two recent Seasons of it.
Given that Dr. Who is also one of the oldest science fiction programs, under any definition of "longest running" that allows production gaps, Dr. Who will continue to hold the record for "longest running" forever -- so long as some one makes a new episode every 10 years or so.
There are 723 episodes of Doctor who...
That's the record worth talking about. A world-record is only interesting if there are other contenders that stand a reasonable chance of claiming it. Otherwise, all we're saying is that Dr. Who is the oldest.