In fact "abuse" is so common that, scientifically speaking, it's a bit loaded call them mis-uses of language. Your teachers spend years drumming into you that language is a tool for conveying ideas -- which it is -- and no time teaching you about how language is a tool for getting people to do what you want.
There is absolutely nothing unique to business about deceptively manipulative language. In fact, the blanket term for the kind of cant mentioned in the summary is "bullshit". "Bullshit" is a statement that you're expected to believe to be true, but which you'll go along with if it were true. We are surrounded by bullshit -- advertising, political progpaganda, business jargon -- in the way that fish are surrounded by water. It is the primary constituent of the media we consume. Sometimes it's hard to recognize as manipulative because it so so transparently not intended to be believed. We're so conditioned to believe that our ideas are the target of language we leave our behavior completely unguarded.
Ultimately bullshit does end up manipulating belief, but indirectly. Going along with bullshit shapes your behavior, your behavior shapes your attitudes, and very quickly that corrupts your thinking too. That's why people in authoritarian societies believe all kinds of ridiculous things, like the power of the great leader to shape history through sheer will or destiny.
Advertisers, business leaders, and politicians all do important and legitimate jobs, but we should not make those jobs too easy by putting our faith in them. We should be mindful whenever a CEO or president opens his mouth, he's trying to get something out of you. Maybe you'll decide to give it to him, but you shouldn't do that because he's convinced you to do that automatically.
You aren't supposed to use mod points for disagreement. You're supposed to use comments for disagreement, as you just did.
As for your comment, while controlled double blind experiments are the gold standard for evidence for experimental science, in many kinds of even natural sciences it does not apply (e.g. geophysics or astronomy). Not every scientific paper describes an experiment.
Yep, there's definitely a couple of needles somewhere in that ocean of haystacks. Along with a couple of million shiny, skinny pointy objects that look like needles but blow up in your face when you try to thread them.
Why limit research to one segment to create a self confirming headline?
To answer your question: because you can't study everything at the same time without making assumptions you can't justify yet. This happens all the time in social sciences. Before you can safely lump things together you have to study them separately.
On the face of it, attacks on women appear distinct in their character from attacks on men, although exactly how different is obviously possible to exaggerate. But before you object, yes, there have been studies that focus on male victims of social media bullying too, they just didn't get a mention here. Social media bullying is a hot research topic, but it's early days yet and because this is social sciences that means results are highly unreliable. This is largely because potential research populations tend to be mixed bags of apples and oranges.
So expect a lot of research looking at various target groups: men vs. women, straight vs. gay, or as in this case women in general vs. women of color. Really the best social science tends to take big homogeneous trends and tries to parse them into distinct pieces. For example the US economy *on average* resumed reasonable growth between 2010 and 2015, but a gulf emerged between large cities, where nearly all that growth took place, and rural/small town areas which continued to see job losses and falling labor participation rates.
Well, figure out w way to do planetary science that benefits only Americans, and make sure that's a better deal for us than sharing knowledge with the rest of the world would be.
The US is a global economic and military power. If you think we do this kind of shit out of pure altruism, that's rather naive. Science is a real part of our soft power around the world, and a bargain compared to what we spend on hard power.
Our global scientific might not only benefits us directly economically, it brings the best minds in the world to us and gives our voice a weight far in excess of the 4% of the world's population we represent. True, we represent about a quarter of world GDP, but that gives the other 96% of the world plenty of incentive to take us down a peg.
Yes, millions of tires in some case. But *thousands* of tires is an enormous problem too. A dry tire weighs between 20 and 30 pounds. Fill it with water and you add another ten pounds. So a thousand tires could amount to around fifteen tons. It is not cheap to deal with that.
Obviously it's good practice to jump on something like this quickly, but it's not always clear (until a local government has experience with something like this) whose job it is to handle, and by the time you notice it and figure out whose job it is, the work to be done can outstrip your resources. These giant tire mountains tend to occur in places where government runs on a tight belt, which means an unexpected problem is followed by a fight over whose responsibility it is to fix.
This is what sociologists call a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Years ago I worked in public health, and there was an analogous process that occurred with illegal tire dumps. Someone would be driving to the dump and decide to save the tipping fee by tossing their tire by the side of the road. Then a second person would come along with an old tire, and figuring that two tires really aren't any worse than one, he'd dump his there too. The process would snowball at an extraordinary rate, and soon you'd have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of tires. The largest were called "tire mountains", weighed tens of thousands of tons, and were too expensive to move for reprocessing. It's cheaper to build a tire reprocessing plant on site.
Here's my point: there isn't anything inherently special about that spot along the side of the road. Destiny didn't mark single it out as the future site of a tire mountain. Some random person decided to treat it as a place to dump his crap, and because people are herd animals that triggered a crap tidal wave.
There's nothing inherently special or irredeemable about shithole neighborhoods either. But once the world decides they're places to shit on, there's nothing the people living there can do about it.
The Earth's radius is roughly three and a half times that of the Moon.
One of the nifty demonstrations they make you do in vector calculus is the proving that you can treat a spherical body like a point of the same mass for purposes of gravitation. The Earth is roughly 82x as massive, and 82 / 3.7^2 is 5.9.
Considering that "Big Ben" is actually the name of one of the Elizabeth Tower Clock's components: the largest of its five bells. Since this is inside the tower, that filter gives your phone the power to see through limestone.
By trying to be the institution with the most accurate crystal ball. Even if it is accurate, it's only going to be accurate for a very short time.
The best way to prepare people for jobs whose nature you can't predict is to educate them on generally useful things. Critical thinking. Research skills. Mathematics. Writing. Financial and economic literacy. How to work with other people. These are all skills that make someone adaptable.
I've heard of it. Originally it was conceived as a lightweight distro for older hardware, but they seem to have repositioned themselves as a more general purpose distro. Xubuntu too marries the Ubuntu base to a less resource-hungry desktop environment (XFCE), but I think most users choose Xubuntu because they prefer a less elaborate desktop experience, not because they're shoehorning a GUI into a limited number of bytes. It's possible this is what most Lubuntu users want too.
So this probably represents more of an inflection point for the Lubuntu distro and its derivatives, not for 32-bit computing in general. There are still distros aimed at older or small form factor type computers.
Apps that aren't running have a real hard time tracking where you are.
No they don't. Not if by "running" you mean having some kind of user-facing UI. Apps run services in the background all the time and yes, they collect information about where you are.
The line between app and malware is shockingly blurry, since app vendors fell free to collect, transmit and share data about you without your awareness.
The real genius of this device is that it was designed to be funny without causing any kind of serious injury or damage. In fact you can hear some of the thieves on the video laughing. The glitter spreading mechanism is pretty lame; it's like shaking a box of litter around the edge of the box. He could have used a can of compressed air or some kind of pyrotechnic squib to distribute the glitter, and it would end up everywhere, but that includes peoples' eyes.
There are going to be the inevitable suggestions for how to make the device more damaging or dangerous; and the reason this guy didn't do anything like throwing dye or shrapnel isn't that he wasn't clever enough to see the possibilities. He was clever enough to see the weak point in his plans: the thief-turned-victim has your home address. Get too nasty and he might return the favor with a molotov cocktail or even a bullet.
Well, yes. But people can't wrap their brains around the fact that they only way to ensure that companies compete with each other is regulation.
Armchair capitalists believe in a world where businessmen eagerly leap into commodity price battles for the consumer's dollars, but those of us who've actually run a business know damn well that what you try to do is lock your customers in and lock your competitors out. Anything you can do to avoid competition that is legal, you do. And by "legal" I mean de facto legal. Rules that aren't enforced might as well not exist.
"Selling a commodity" is practically business cant for being incompetent and unimaginative. It's for suckers. Captive customers is what every business wants, and over time the more competent businesses will get them. And once you're safely extracting easy profits from those customers, you look for ways to use them as a lever to extend the markets you control.
Google's leveraging its position in the uploaded video market to exclude Microsoft from competing in the browser market is exactly what any unregulated company would do. In fact, it's exactly what Microsoft did for many years. And IBM before them.
Not necessarily. Air gapped sysrtems can be attacked by parties with sufficient means -- state actors. Remember STUXNET? It was a joint American/Israeli attack on SCADA systems controlling Iranian uranium centrifuges. To get at those air-gapped PLCs, we infected the whole world.
It's not enough to air gap a system, you have to air gap every system that prepares data and program updates for that system. Essentially you have to build up an entirely separate parallel cyber infrastructure that never has contact with the outside world either directly or indirectly.
After you've done that, you need to make sure that every single person who comes in contact with the system is absolutely trustworthy, from the janitors up to the generals. Since that's basically impossible, you still need 2FA and AV.
We need to reduce carbon emissions from the sources with the highest marginal reduction per cost. If only there were some way resources could be allocated to that by some kind of magical, invisible hand....
True, but for practical purposes irrelevant, unless you have an economically viable concrete formulation that doesn't include quicklime clinker in some way. It is impossible to reduce the carbon footprint of concrete (180 kg/mt) without either reducing the carbon footprint of Portland cement (927 kg/mt), or replacing the cement component entirely.
There are concrete formulations that don't include Portland cement, but they're much more expensive.
Well, there is no end to "cost is no object" solutions to greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that in the real world, cost *is* an object, and a very important one.
This is why cap and trade is a viable, market oriented solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Normally the 182 kg of CO2 that's emitted when I produce a ton of concrete to sell to you isn't part of our transaction. Under cap-and-trade, CO2 reduction becomes a profit center, because if I can reduce my emissions below some reasonable target (e.g. down to 150 kg), I can sell the surplus to someone who can't meet the target.
The problem is that cap-and-trade is not politically viable, because people invested in technology that can't be upgraded are currently dumping their pollution for free.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact "abuse" is so common that, scientifically speaking, it's a bit loaded call them mis-uses of language. Your teachers spend years drumming into you that language is a tool for conveying ideas -- which it is -- and no time teaching you about how language is a tool for getting people to do what you want.
There is absolutely nothing unique to business about deceptively manipulative language. In fact, the blanket term for the kind of cant mentioned in the summary is "bullshit". "Bullshit" is a statement that you're expected to believe to be true, but which you'll go along with if it were true. We are surrounded by bullshit -- advertising, political progpaganda, business jargon -- in the way that fish are surrounded by water. It is the primary constituent of the media we consume. Sometimes it's hard to recognize as manipulative because it so so transparently not intended to be believed. We're so conditioned to believe that our ideas are the target of language we leave our behavior completely unguarded.
Ultimately bullshit does end up manipulating belief, but indirectly. Going along with bullshit shapes your behavior, your behavior shapes your attitudes, and very quickly that corrupts your thinking too. That's why people in authoritarian societies believe all kinds of ridiculous things, like the power of the great leader to shape history through sheer will or destiny.
Advertisers, business leaders, and politicians all do important and legitimate jobs, but we should not make those jobs too easy by putting our faith in them. We should be mindful whenever a CEO or president opens his mouth, he's trying to get something out of you. Maybe you'll decide to give it to him, but you shouldn't do that because he's convinced you to do that automatically.
You aren't supposed to use mod points for disagreement. You're supposed to use comments for disagreement, as you just did.
As for your comment, while controlled double blind experiments are the gold standard for evidence for experimental science, in many kinds of even natural sciences it does not apply (e.g. geophysics or astronomy). Not every scientific paper describes an experiment.
Yep, there's definitely a couple of needles somewhere in that ocean of haystacks. Along with a couple of million shiny, skinny pointy objects that look like needles but blow up in your face when you try to thread them.
Why limit research to one segment to create a self confirming headline?
To answer your question: because you can't study everything at the same time without making assumptions you can't justify yet. This happens all the time in social sciences. Before you can safely lump things together you have to study them separately.
On the face of it, attacks on women appear distinct in their character from attacks on men, although exactly how different is obviously possible to exaggerate. But before you object, yes, there have been studies that focus on male victims of social media bullying too, they just didn't get a mention here. Social media bullying is a hot research topic, but it's early days yet and because this is social sciences that means results are highly unreliable. This is largely because potential research populations tend to be mixed bags of apples and oranges.
So expect a lot of research looking at various target groups: men vs. women, straight vs. gay, or as in this case women in general vs. women of color. Really the best social science tends to take big homogeneous trends and tries to parse them into distinct pieces. For example the US economy *on average* resumed reasonable growth between 2010 and 2015, but a gulf emerged between large cities, where nearly all that growth took place, and rural/small town areas which continued to see job losses and falling labor participation rates.
If only science spending actually *was* bankrupting the US economy...
Well, figure out w way to do planetary science that benefits only Americans, and make sure that's a better deal for us than sharing knowledge with the rest of the world would be.
The US is a global economic and military power. If you think we do this kind of shit out of pure altruism, that's rather naive. Science is a real part of our soft power around the world, and a bargain compared to what we spend on hard power.
Our global scientific might not only benefits us directly economically, it brings the best minds in the world to us and gives our voice a weight far in excess of the 4% of the world's population we represent. True, we represent about a quarter of world GDP, but that gives the other 96% of the world plenty of incentive to take us down a peg.
And you're the fish. First they hook you, then they play you.
If you keep preferring Prime even as they back off on the initial promise of convenience, then they still have wiggle room to play you.
Yes, millions of tires in some case. But *thousands* of tires is an enormous problem too. A dry tire weighs between 20 and 30 pounds. Fill it with water and you add another ten pounds. So a thousand tires could amount to around fifteen tons. It is not cheap to deal with that.
Obviously it's good practice to jump on something like this quickly, but it's not always clear (until a local government has experience with something like this) whose job it is to handle, and by the time you notice it and figure out whose job it is, the work to be done can outstrip your resources. These giant tire mountains tend to occur in places where government runs on a tight belt, which means an unexpected problem is followed by a fight over whose responsibility it is to fix.
This is what sociologists call a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Years ago I worked in public health, and there was an analogous process that occurred with illegal tire dumps. Someone would be driving to the dump and decide to save the tipping fee by tossing their tire by the side of the road. Then a second person would come along with an old tire, and figuring that two tires really aren't any worse than one, he'd dump his there too. The process would snowball at an extraordinary rate, and soon you'd have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of tires. The largest were called "tire mountains", weighed tens of thousands of tons, and were too expensive to move for reprocessing. It's cheaper to build a tire reprocessing plant on site.
Here's my point: there isn't anything inherently special about that spot along the side of the road. Destiny didn't mark single it out as the future site of a tire mountain. Some random person decided to treat it as a place to dump his crap, and because people are herd animals that triggered a crap tidal wave.
There's nothing inherently special or irredeemable about shithole neighborhoods either. But once the world decides they're places to shit on, there's nothing the people living there can do about it.
The Earth's radius is roughly three and a half times that of the Moon.
One of the nifty demonstrations they make you do in vector calculus is the proving that you can treat a spherical body like a point of the same mass for purposes of gravitation. The Earth is roughly 82x as massive, and 82 / 3.7^2 is 5.9.
It's "Elizabeth Tower".
Considering that "Big Ben" is actually the name of one of the Elizabeth Tower Clock's components: the largest of its five bells. Since this is inside the tower, that filter gives your phone the power to see through limestone.
By trying to be the institution with the most accurate crystal ball. Even if it is accurate, it's only going to be accurate for a very short time.
The best way to prepare people for jobs whose nature you can't predict is to educate them on generally useful things. Critical thinking. Research skills. Mathematics. Writing. Financial and economic literacy. How to work with other people. These are all skills that make someone adaptable.
I've heard of it. Originally it was conceived as a lightweight distro for older hardware, but they seem to have repositioned themselves as a more general purpose distro. Xubuntu too marries the Ubuntu base to a less resource-hungry desktop environment (XFCE), but I think most users choose Xubuntu because they prefer a less elaborate desktop experience, not because they're shoehorning a GUI into a limited number of bytes. It's possible this is what most Lubuntu users want too.
So this probably represents more of an inflection point for the Lubuntu distro and its derivatives, not for 32-bit computing in general. There are still distros aimed at older or small form factor type computers.
That's not how 2FA necessarily works.
If everything launched into orbit is, ipso facto "junk", then why worry about junk running into other junk?
Apps that aren't running have a real hard time tracking where you are.
No they don't. Not if by "running" you mean having some kind of user-facing UI. Apps run services in the background all the time and yes, they collect information about where you are.
The line between app and malware is shockingly blurry, since app vendors fell free to collect, transmit and share data about you without your awareness.
Then you have to kill them with a very high probability of success, which is not so easy, especially if you want to avoid collateral damage.
The real genius of this device is that it was designed to be funny without causing any kind of serious injury or damage. In fact you can hear some of the thieves on the video laughing. The glitter spreading mechanism is pretty lame; it's like shaking a box of litter around the edge of the box. He could have used a can of compressed air or some kind of pyrotechnic squib to distribute the glitter, and it would end up everywhere, but that includes peoples' eyes.
There are going to be the inevitable suggestions for how to make the device more damaging or dangerous; and the reason this guy didn't do anything like throwing dye or shrapnel isn't that he wasn't clever enough to see the possibilities. He was clever enough to see the weak point in his plans: the thief-turned-victim has your home address. Get too nasty and he might return the favor with a molotov cocktail or even a bullet.
Well, yes. But people can't wrap their brains around the fact that they only way to ensure that companies compete with each other is regulation.
Armchair capitalists believe in a world where businessmen eagerly leap into commodity price battles for the consumer's dollars, but those of us who've actually run a business know damn well that what you try to do is lock your customers in and lock your competitors out. Anything you can do to avoid competition that is legal, you do. And by "legal" I mean de facto legal. Rules that aren't enforced might as well not exist.
"Selling a commodity" is practically business cant for being incompetent and unimaginative. It's for suckers. Captive customers is what every business wants, and over time the more competent businesses will get them. And once you're safely extracting easy profits from those customers, you look for ways to use them as a lever to extend the markets you control.
Google's leveraging its position in the uploaded video market to exclude Microsoft from competing in the browser market is exactly what any unregulated company would do. In fact, it's exactly what Microsoft did for many years. And IBM before them.
Not necessarily. Air gapped sysrtems can be attacked by parties with sufficient means -- state actors. Remember STUXNET? It was a joint American/Israeli attack on SCADA systems controlling Iranian uranium centrifuges. To get at those air-gapped PLCs, we infected the whole world.
It's not enough to air gap a system, you have to air gap every system that prepares data and program updates for that system. Essentially you have to build up an entirely separate parallel cyber infrastructure that never has contact with the outside world either directly or indirectly.
After you've done that, you need to make sure that every single person who comes in contact with the system is absolutely trustworthy, from the janitors up to the generals. Since that's basically impossible, you still need 2FA and AV.
We need to reduce carbon emissions from the sources with the highest marginal reduction per cost. If only there were some way resources could be allocated to that by some kind of magical, invisible hand....
I've heard the same arguments made against investing in the stock market: it's just legally sanctioned "gambling".
Throwing a pejorative sounding tag on an idea isn't much of an argument.
True, but for practical purposes irrelevant, unless you have an economically viable concrete formulation that doesn't include quicklime clinker in some way. It is impossible to reduce the carbon footprint of concrete (180 kg/mt) without either reducing the carbon footprint of Portland cement (927 kg/mt), or replacing the cement component entirely.
There are concrete formulations that don't include Portland cement, but they're much more expensive.
Well, there is no end to "cost is no object" solutions to greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that in the real world, cost *is* an object, and a very important one.
This is why cap and trade is a viable, market oriented solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Normally the 182 kg of CO2 that's emitted when I produce a ton of concrete to sell to you isn't part of our transaction. Under cap-and-trade, CO2 reduction becomes a profit center, because if I can reduce my emissions below some reasonable target (e.g. down to 150 kg), I can sell the surplus to someone who can't meet the target.
The problem is that cap-and-trade is not politically viable, because people invested in technology that can't be upgraded are currently dumping their pollution for free.