Perhaps, but far from unique. How about adding a unique identifier, like their Social Security Number perhaps?
That's a great idea... why has no one thought of that before.;)
From the study cited in TFA: "Crosscheck’s data... contain, when available, the last four digits of each registration’s Social Security number (SSN4)." So they used that to compare name/DOB pairings (the proposed criterion for removal) where SSN4 was available in the data. Thus:
Using data provided to Iowa in 2012, we identified 1,483 [name/DOB] pairings with complete SSN4 information in which both registration records were used to vote in 2012. In more than 99.5% of these pairings, the flagged registrations had different SSN4s, supporting our intuition that our model estimates an upper bound on the number of double votes cast in 2012.
It's one big giant bubble and when it bursts, who knows what financial ruin will face us.
That's what people were saying when XBT first reached $1,000 back in December 2013. Nothing to worry about at all.
Bubbles only really happen when people buy things with little to no intrinsic value for purely speculative reasons. If this were really a bubble you would have a sensational rise in price of XBT. What's more the price would have been largely unresponsive to news of increasing moves to regulate or outright ban it by various governments around the world.
So yeah, just go ahead and plow all your life-savings into XBT... it's as safe as silver!
The missing 'not' was glowingly obvious in the context of the conversation. In any case I was merely pointing out that in the case of LSD at least, it being derrived from a none-too-friendly natural substance, hardly supports the notion of our having evolved to "process" that particular drug.
In any case, I think the contention is irrelevant to our modern usage of these classes of drugs.
I couldn't agree more. More than that I feel the contention that hallucinogen consumption has exerted any meaningful selection pressure as to affect our physical evolution is dubious, and the idea that "[m]ost 'unnatural' substances have a negative impact on the average individual" (with the implication that natural substances are better by virtue of their natural occurence) is simplistic and unempirical (as the relative safety of LSD in comparison to its natural precursor ought to make clear).
You can be forgiven for assuming that socialism means welfare...
I disagree. There mere popularity of this conflation should not render so basic an error forgivable.;)
In fact those familiar with the history of the modern welfare state will recognise it as an avowedly anti-socialist in(ter)vention, the carrot to Bismark's legislative stick. To be fair, the confusion is no doubt in part a product of nominally 'Socialist' parties in Western democracies increasingly abandoning actual socialism in favour of welfare statism.
[5]... you commit the genetic fallacy here. You neglect the argument at hand because of the source
That's not quite fair. I merely observed "a circular form" of the argument could be put --which would be an "explanation of how a Universe of objects came into being," but could not function as a proof of existence --and that there exists the possibility that prior acceptance of a deity "may possibly" make the other divine attributes appear as naturally predicated to any First Cause.
And in your last reply I find you writing, in defence of the proposition that the first cause must be a god: "look into the ontological and moral arguments for god." The more pertinent part of that defence I shall address below.
Fourth, I would argue that the First Cause would need to be self-aware. Otherwise, you have random chance causing everything to exist. but any material for existence... would need to first exist for "random chance" to happen. Otherwise you get something from nothing
The concept 'random chance' introduces a whole new level of complexity into a discussion of causation. Be that as it may, it is far from clear how self-awareness is a necessary precondition for "any material," even unto the ultimate development of consciousness itself from such material.
Third, to address your discussion of the He pronoun...
This was just an example, given as an aside, of an obviously contingent attribute being ascribed to the first cause. More to the point is reflexive consciousness (since that, unlike male gender, is inevitably an attribute of any god).
Second, it does not follow that the First Cause could come into and out of existence.
Here you have simply misread me. I wrote that the First Cause "would [necessarily] have the attribute of not having a beginning," indeed, it is axiomatic to this discussion that it cannot "come into" existence. I was just pointing out that this does not mean it cannot "go out of existence." I.e The First Cause would need to be without beginning, but not necessarily eternal.
First, the first cause must be god.... first cause would need to be greater than the thing being created
Of the many causes that produce effects are those causes necessarily "greater" than their effects? What might 'greater' even mean here?
You and I shall probably never be able to agree on the answer to what I regard as the central problem here: Might not something fairly innocuous be able to function as the first of all causes? And tempted as I am to open up the ontological argument in the context of the creator being "greater" than creation, we've probably been at this for long enough now, no?
If you claim things can happen without a cause, then that could be shown with a scientific experiment. The law of cause and effect would disagree.
I was only a observing that your claim that "we can show that the universe had a beginning," coupled with the notion that there is no physical cause for that beginning could just as well evidence an object-with-beginning-but-without-cause as it might your postulated undetectable non-physical cause (God). But as I said, it's parenthetical to my actual objection... after all I began by conceding, for the sake of this discussion, "the postulate of the necessity of cause."
If something has caused the universe to come into being, then it would logically follow that this being would have the attributes of [a] god.
I'm sorry, but this is where I simply cannot agree. It is, imo, the crux of the problem with this 'proof.'
A First Cause, in a world where cause was necessary to beginning, would have the attribute of not having a beginning (it would not need to be eternal, of course, as it might cease once having performed its task of causing), and it would need to have the attribute of being a cause, but everything apart from that is incidental. As you referred to God (i.e. the god known as God) as "He," I pointed out that the attribute of being gendered male is just one example of something that cannot reasonably be attributed to a First Cause qua First Cause (which is not to say the First Cause could not resemble a male human of course, there is simply no logical necessity that it does.) And since, apart from these attempts at logical proof, we know in fact (or would were we Hindu;) that the Cosmos is caused by (or is a manifestation of) Shakti clearly masculinity is not a necessary attribute either of a First Cause nor of a god(dess).
More seriously the attribute of being reflexively conscious (ie. self-aware) is an attribute that any god, I think, must possess, but which would not follow necessarily from the status of being a First Cause. In other words, the argument from first cause, (accepting the premises on which it is based), strikes me as not being an argument for the existence of any god, but for the existence of a First Cause. It is the imposition of the other divine attributes that strikes me as argument by definition. Alternatively we could see some circularity in the thinking here.
The circular form of this argument might run. 1) Everything non-eternal has a beginning. 2) All things that have a beginning must have a cause. 3) This chain of causation must itself have a beginning. 4) Since God is eternal, He has no beginning and requires no cause. Thus God is the only thing capable of being the beginning of the chain of causation. Now while this might function as an explanation of how a Universe of objects came into being, it cannot obviously function as Proof of God. Without wanting to be rude, I suspect a subtle form of this thinking may possibly be able to influence those, who already possessed of a strong Faith in God, come to the Argument from First Cause, thus making it easy to see all those other attributes of God as being predicated unproblematically to the First Cause.
Yes, so God would be the un-caused first cause since He [sic] is eternal. However, I agree with you, this would not assume the God [sic] of the Hebrew bible, but rather A God [sic] in general; a deity.
I was confused by your capitalisation, which in English usually denotes a proper noun. I carry the general rule even to the gods. Thus 'God' would usually refer to the Hebrew god (esp. where the original Hebrew text has some cognate of El, most commonly Elohim). Your usage apparently varies... no matter.
Scientifically, we can show that the universe had a beginning, and that it is expanding, and with entropy. There are even mathematical proofs to show there had to be a beginning.
The other view perhaps is that so-called Big Bang is, as I wrote an event horizon, the mere inaccessibility to us of earlier events, being no guarantee of their non-existence. Indeed, my understanding is that there is now even an attempt to point the mathematics at what happened before the Big Bang.
However, accepting your contention that "we can show that the universe had a beginning," and bearing in mind that we cannot therefor find a physical cause that brought it into being: this contention itself is not un-problematic to the Cosmological proof. Instead of the statement "[w]hatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" being true, it may be that "most things which begin have a cause," and however small the set of objects having a beginning but no cause might be, we would have empirical evidence for at least one.
The only other possible argument you might have, is that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting. Eternal big bangs...
Whether or not that is the only other possible argument, it is, I gather, more or less what is being proposed above. Not that I should pretend to understand far less to endorse this view, I do not need to for because...
All of this is tangential the to point I was making. You haven't addressed my actual objection to the Argument from First Cause: Namely, that positing a god, God if you like, as the First Cause, involves illegitimately injecting all its the other attributes (including, as you would have it, God's gender for example) of that god into the role of First Cause. There is no necessary connection between having the attribute of being 'eternal' (as bare existence might be), and having, for example, a gender resembling that of XY humanoids [and on the Ontological Argument shouldn't we expect the complete XX;) ], nor indeed any of the other attributes humans traditionally ascribe to their various gods, most especially being a self-reflective consciousness. As I wrote, that the "First Cause postulated by human thought so neatly resembles a thinking human" really is suspicious.
The Argument from First Cause has always struck me ultimately as unsatisfying, it feels like argument by definition (since a god is being defined as the Cause without origin).
If, accepting the postulate of the necessity of cause ("[w]hatever BEGINS to exist has a cause"), one admits the possibility of a First Cause, then something other than the Hebrew deity Elohim (trans. 'God'), or any other self-reflectively conscious god, might just as easily function as that First Cause. And if there is a god that has always existed than bare (non-conscious) existence must itself be without beginning. The Big Bang may be our event horizon, but it might simply be an event that took place in an inherently eternal cosmos.
That the First Cause postulated by human thought so neatly resembles a thinking human is suspicious.
We're testing two different things here. The apparent 'contradiction' between the results of the two testing regimes might not amount to any contradiction at all.
With fake resume studies we are isolating gender as an independent variable. With gender-blanked genuine resumes OTOH, we are perhaps testing instead which gender generally already possesses the greater portion of relevant qualifications and experience for the particular position. So while at first gloss the BETA study seems to contradict much of the fake resume work, on reflection that is not necessarily so. There may simply be (and likely is) a higher proportion of more qualified men at the relevant level which difference (modest though it appears at ca. 3%) could mask any putative gender preference.
Now there are other considerations of course, eg, in an agency culture where an equal opportunity is already well established, blanking gender relieves the anxiety of including too many of any particular gender on the interview list. Also the nature of the position needs to be considered as not all fake resume studies show a preference for men (from memory a test on child-care worker positions showed one of the most extreme gender preference response... strongly in favour of female names). If something about a position would recommend to people's preconceptions of what fits particularly female talents, again blanking would be expected to favour men.
However, just by itself, the likely difference between in qualification/experience of one gender (esp. at more senior levels), means that the effects observed in genuine resume studies cannot be taken to contradict the effects observed in those studies where the effect of gender is isolated in purer form.
For you perhaps. Most of us mere mortals would use computers and data processing (specifically to be criminalised in the proposed legislation).
CAUSING IT TO BE KNOWN TO YOU
There mere fact of an identity becoming, by the unaided powers of mental deduction, known to you is unlikely of itself to attract any liability. Don't fear... you're safe Sherlock.;)
You may, however, commit an offence were you actually to identify (i.e. publish the identity of) any de-anonymised individual (in connection with de-anonymised data). Of course if the idenity became known to you because of data processing you conducted for the purposes of de-anonymisation then you might be guilty of the processing offence.
Among the new offences proposed there are two relevant for present purposes: 1) intentionally or recklessly re-identifying an individual from anonymised or pseudo-anonymised data (the 'publication' offence) and 2) knowingly handling (a legal term more commonly associated with handling stolen goods) or processing anonymised data for the purposes of de-anonymisation (the 'processing' offence). That at least, in the absence of statutory text, is what I would take from the Minister's statement of intent.
The "unlimited fine" is remarkable, but is probably intended to capture likely players such as Google.
Not at all Alvaro (you can call me Capsaicin;). I'm trying to encourage the better you to show himself, the one who wrote "I will apologise... To comply with what I expect from everyone else: do whatever you want, but always take responsibility for your mistakes."
This statement is extremely ambiguous and with many different potential...
No need to overthink it (you run the risk of appearing to weasle), it's really quite straightforward. The google search I gave you above "(olympic OR olympic-sized) swimming pools of" (quotation marks obviously necessary), throws up about 35,300 results. I've gone 5 pages deep and, at least on my localised version have seen not one instance of it referring to area. Each and every example I encountered describe volume. Honestly, we need hardly have recourse to statistics here.
You are correct it is mainly liquid capacity: water, sewage, oil, low-level nuclear waste and even semen, however also sand, gold, the "space" taken up by mattresses, and even fish make an appearance.
... most of the first results which I found were referring to volume
"Most?" Is the the better and honest Alvaro writing?
I can say that it might... be possible that swimming pools are commonly used as informal way to describe volumes.
It might be possible? Come now.
This is all what you wanted?
What I wanted you not to contradict me when I was correct and you were wrong. This really should have ended, after you first corrected me, when I wrote "[w]hile I can accept that might be true for the land surface of Delaware, or the bullring... the Olympic swimming pool... is most assuredly a measure of volume. [new emphasis]" And if not then, certainly when I gave you that first link (and as an aside I think it was researched not by "someone like [me]," but rather by someone like you, i.e. a metrologist)
Really you wasted a lot of time by not accepting much earlier, that a) OSP is commonly used as a measure of volume and b) the idea that all "whacky" measures are necessarily about 1 or 2, but never 3 dimensions, was wrong-minded. I take it, however begruddingly and hedged in possibility, you do now.
Perhaps this was an English usage issue, (though your English appears faultless), but the next time I "assure" you of a fact, have your evidence to prove me wrong marshalled before contradicting me. I do take very well to being proven wrong... it being such a rare pleasure.
That's not much an apology Alvaro. Have you no honour?
PS: are you seriously believing that I (or any other person with a bit of knowledge) will be accepting swimming pools as a valid unit of measurement?!
I'm not askling you to accept it as a "valid" unit of measurement. I'm asking you to admit it is commonly used by the media to describe volume, and I'm asking you to accept your theory that "none of these wacky units of measurement refers to 3D/volume" because 3D is too difficult for ordinary people to grasp, is demonstrably false.
I will apologise right now. Why am I explaining all this you might wonder? To comply with what I expect from everyone else: do whatever you want, but always take responsibility for your mistakes
If that be so Alvaro, I will await with anticipation your apology for the mistake of correcting me as to the fact that Olympic swimming pools is a popular measure of volume. (and not of area).
Ah you've attempted include yourself (not sure this is actually possible), glad to be of assistance.
I hope you die in a fire.
The irony of fate being what is is that this will probably happen now. Not only to me, but to my lovely wife and our 4 and 2 year old daughters as well. Well done you!
And if you're reading Slashdot, and you haven't been harassed, you're a stupid piece of shit.
There. It's back at 100%.
Well no. I'm proud to be a stupid piece of shit, so telling me that isn't harassment. Even on the untoward assumption that 100% of Slashdot readers read that particular comment, there's enough of us around to stop you getting your 100%.:p
This wasn't exactly the kind of external reference which I was expecting (as far as this article might have been written by a person like you...
A simple "thank you, I didn't know about the use of all these measures", or "sorry my bad, you were right all along" would have sufficed there. In ignoring a site of that "kind" you run the risk of appearing not merely to be ignorant about the subject matter, but of being willfully so. [Pro tip: Whenever you have clearly been shown to be wrong, a fortiori on a matter of fact, be big enough immediately and gracefully to admit your error and move on.]
I was expecting samples of actual usage in the kind of informal contexts where these units are meant to be used; for example, a non-technical article in a newspaper providing a graphical idea about a big volume by actually relying on swimming pools.
You mean like this article? Or like Melbourne Water's fact sheet on the Thomson Reservoir which gives the reservoir's capacity not only as "1,068 billion litres", but also as "2x Sydney Harbours," "628 x MCGs" and "427,000 x Olympic-sized swimming pools?" [Just to reference some other measures of volume listed on that very informative page.] Do you need any more? You could always use Google yourself, you know.
And this "expectation" of yours? It was reasonably founded, no doubt, on the pertinence and quality of the external references you provided, yes?
BTW, thanks for quoting me on things which I never said/thought
Don't be disingenuous! I never "quoted" anything you didn't say, the analogous arguments which no reasonable reader could take to constitute a direct quoting notwithstanding. And I already conceded the second, in which one party (you), was insisting on the basis of some cognitive theory that a well-known measure of volume (litres in place of Olympic swimming pools per analogy) could not be a measure of volume, was the fairer. And indeed, not only it was a fair and accurate account of what you were doing, it was based largely, without any implication that those were direct quotes, on the actual words used.
Anyway, writing this last comment...
Not apparently being a man of your word, you've promised me twice your comment was the last. Maybe it will be a case of "third time lucky?"
Capsaicin: Instead of measuring the length (in metres) of an iceberg, or the area (in hectares) we should be measuring its volume in litres.
CustomSolvers2: Everything in the real 3D world we live in is associated with a volume, but all these measure metres, hectares and litres are meant to give people an X/Y view by not minding the Z component (height). It is much easier for us to understand 2D concepts
Capsaicin: No that is not true for litres which is a measure of volume.
CustomSolvers2: Sorry to be a bit serious on this part, but none of these units of measurement refers to 3D/volume. It is always 2D/area or even 1D/length. As explained, getting a proper grasp of 3D dimensions is quite counter-intuitive
Capsaicin: No litres are used to measure volume
CustomSolvers2: Your argument mostly consists in repeating the same mantra over and over without trying to understand/dismiss my points.
CustomSolvers2: There are no female movie starts because all movies stars are men, because, [some theory]
Capsaicin: Well Elizabeth was an movie star and she was woman.
CustomSolvers2: No Elizabeth Taylor was a man. Sorry to be a bit serious on this part, but all movie starts are men, as explained [some theory]
&tc.
FFS mate!
Your remaining post doesn't seem to make too much sense either:
I assure you: There has been no fault in my written English. If it does not "make sense" you need to exercise more effort in comprehending it.
your argument mostly consists in repeating the same mantra over and over
Oh dear God the IRONY!
... without trying to understand/dismiss my points.
I understand (and dismiss) your point.
The problem is your theory about all of these whacky measurements being about 1D or 2D is falsified by the use, ad nauseum, of the Olympic Swimming Pool --certainly by the media here in Australia --as a measure for volume as opposed to area. Do you get that simple fact, or will you force me to repeat myself yet again? Which is the very reason I introduced it, because unlike "bigger than Madrid, as big as Delaware, soccer stadiums" all of which speak of area, we ought to consider the volume of an iceberg, which the common use of the Olympic Swimming pool does. Sheesh!
As to your point is that a proper grasp of 3D dimensions is counter-intuitive, I addressed that by asking you to imagine standing on the edge of an empty swimming pool without being aware of the sides of the pool, something which you will find you cannot in all honesty do. It will not be a pool you are imagining, but a carpet. I put it to you the a grasp of a box as a 3D container is not counter-intuitive.
I didn't enjoy either the funny or the serious parts of this small chat with you
Well you shouldn't have contradicted me in the first place about the actual use of one of these made up units about which you plainly have no knowledge. Yeah? You really didn't need, in all ignorance as the the facts, to go down the "serious part"... your choice. But look, I'm so sorry that the facts don't agree with your pet theory about "stupid units" that must really hurt.
Who says that? Just because we are forced to let them write "beer" on it doesn't mean we have to accept that as truth.
It's the money as well: I think as late as the 1990s Germany used to charge an excise on the "beer" imported form other European countries. She was stopped from doing so... and that despite some German politician's attempt to argue a "public health exemption" on the basis, from memory, that "the average German male derives up to 40% of his daily calorific intake from beer!":)
Sorry to be a bit [wrong] on this part, but none of these wacky units of measurement refers to 3D/volume. It is always 2D/area or even 1D/length
Sorry, but no they are not, as the use of Olympic swimming pool demonstrates! A body of water of almost 10 megalitres will be described as being "4 Olympic swimming pools." It is used as a measure of volume, not as a measure of area. Similarly an area of 1 1/2 ha or so will be described as being about "10 football fields."
As explained, getting a proper grasp of 3D dimensions is quite counter-intuitive and, as such, completely against all what these references are about (= providing an intuitive understanding for virtually everyone).
As explained, this reasoning does not apply to a swimming pool. Seriously mate, picture in your head for a moment standing on the edge of an empty swimming pool, are you seriously telling me cannot imagine the sides?! Are you even telling me you can picture a pool without the sides? Even if we fill it with a transparent liquid virtually everyone will imagine a pool in 3 dimensions, in the way the will not for the surface of land or the reach of a city. That is why, on the very reasoning you give, it is used to provide an intuitive understanding of volume.
In the SIUA (Spanish Invented Units Association), we don't recognise the SI either. So and as far as you don't mind, I will continue sticking to my bullrings.
Well look I do mind! And I say that there should be action at a European level to eliminate this Spanish heresy! I mean if the Belgians have to accept that English chocolate is actually chocolate (maybe not for much longer) and the Germans have to accept non-Reinheitsgebote Euro-Pils is actually beer, then it's only fair that the bullring (along with all other SIUA measures) be outlawed, to be replaced by the UEFA standard (indeed FIFA standard) football pitch.
... the point of using references like Delaware, swimming pools or bullrings: giving a graphical reference of X/Y (width/depth if you prefer) values by not minding the Z component (height)...When you are trying to picture how big is Delaware (or a swimming pool), you don't think about its height
Sorry. While I can accept that might be true for the land surface of Delaware, or the bullring (not that either are meaningful measures), the Olympic swimming pool (though not a particularly European standard perhaps) is most assuredly a measure of volume every bit as much as the football (pitch|field) (not the "stadium" per se of course, as this varies from stadium to stadium) is the measure of area (the height of the grass notwithstanding). You are meant to think about the height of a swimming pool (in fact it's difficult not to).
this post is expected to be eminently understood as a joke
I'm afraid this is no laughing matter. Just remember how many people had to die in the Napoleonic Wars to bring us these standards. Before you denigrate them any further, just remember the next World War will be fought with nuclear weapons.
I only recognise as valid area units the bullring and the soccer stadium.
I'm sorry but the bullring is not a recognised SI unit... and the football pitch is, as you say, is an area unit. Surely in the case of an iceberg volume is what we want to describe... in other words, we need this measured in olympic size swimming pools.
There is a reason practicing law without a license is a crime. It is to ensure accountability. If a lawyer gives you bad advice, he can be sued for malpractice, lose his license, or even go to jail.
Well I'm not sure where you are where poor legal advice (from a suitably qualified legal professional) can result in a custodial sentence... but yes, there's a bloody good reason that you take your advice from a practising [sic] lawyer: Most importantly, her liability insurance will go some way to repairing any loss the lawyer's incompetently given advice might cause you.
The first rule of legal practice when setting up a deal for a client is to ensure there is either a) an insured (or otherwise liquid) party who can be sued to recover any loss your client might suffer as the result of their (in-)actions, OR b) insurance taken directly by the client, for any likely negative eventuality leading to loss. That rule is broken at the very beginning in acting on the advice of a non-insured person! Not a good way to start.
That being said, for trivialities such as trying to blag your way out of paying a parking fine, the form letters this site apparently spits out are unlikely to cost you any more than the fine you'd be paying anyway. So unless it gets more serious than that (eg. robotic conveyancing) I don't see the site being sued. And hey, who knows, you might get lucky and scare some official off. Even criminal action, on the basis you state above, is taken against it is questionable... does simply supplying form letters really amount to legal practice? Depends on the specific statutes I guess.
[Disclaimer: IAAL, but a non-practising one... trying to explain to my mum that the reason I refuse to do her legal work is not because I'm a lazy ingrate brat is... challenging.]
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but far from unique. How about adding a unique identifier, like their Social Security Number perhaps?
That's a great idea ... why has no one thought of that before. ;)
From the study cited in TFA: "Crosscheck’s data ... contain, when available, the last four digits of each registration’s Social Security number (SSN4)." So they used that to compare name/DOB pairings (the proposed criterion for removal) where SSN4 was available in the data. Thus:
Using data provided to Iowa in 2012, we identified 1,483 [name/DOB] pairings with complete SSN4 information in which both registration records were used to vote in 2012. In more than 99.5% of these pairings, the flagged registrations had different SSN4s, supporting our intuition that our model estimates an upper bound on the number of double votes cast in 2012.
It's one big giant bubble and when it bursts, who knows what financial ruin will face us.
That's what people were saying when XBT first reached $1,000 back in December 2013. Nothing to worry about at all.
Bubbles only really happen when people buy things with little to no intrinsic value for purely speculative reasons. If this were really a bubble you would have a sensational rise in price of XBT. What's more the price would have been largely unresponsive to news of increasing moves to regulate or outright ban it by various governments around the world.
So yeah, just go ahead and plow all your life-savings into XBT ... it's as safe as silver!
The last line should have read ...
The missing 'not' was glowingly obvious in the context of the conversation. In any case I was merely pointing out that in the case of LSD at least, it being derrived from a none-too-friendly natural substance, hardly supports the notion of our having evolved to "process" that particular drug.
In any case, I think the contention is irrelevant to our modern usage of these classes of drugs.
I couldn't agree more. More than that I feel the contention that hallucinogen consumption has exerted any meaningful selection pressure as to affect our physical evolution is dubious, and the idea that "[m]ost 'unnatural' substances have a negative impact on the average individual" (with the implication that natural substances are better by virtue of their natural occurence) is simplistic and unempirical (as the relative safety of LSD in comparison to its natural precursor ought to make clear).
LSD is derived from a natural substance ...
Which is not to say our bodies did "evolve to intake and process" that natural precursor either!
You can be forgiven for assuming that socialism means welfare ...
I disagree. There mere popularity of this conflation should not render so basic an error forgivable. ;)
In fact those familiar with the history of the modern welfare state will recognise it as an avowedly anti-socialist in(ter)vention, the carrot to Bismark's legislative stick. To be fair, the confusion is no doubt in part a product of nominally 'Socialist' parties in Western democracies increasingly abandoning actual socialism in favour of welfare statism.
To address your points in reverse order ...
[5] ... you commit the genetic fallacy here. You neglect the argument at hand because of the source
That's not quite fair. I merely observed "a circular form" of the argument could be put --which would be an "explanation of how a Universe of objects came into being," but could not function as a proof of existence --and that there exists the possibility that prior acceptance of a deity "may possibly" make the other divine attributes appear as naturally predicated to any First Cause.
And in your last reply I find you writing, in defence of the proposition that the first cause must be a god: "look into the ontological and moral arguments for god." The more pertinent part of that defence I shall address below.
Fourth, I would argue that the First Cause would need to be self-aware. Otherwise, you have random chance causing everything to exist. but any material for existence ... would need to first exist for "random chance" to happen. Otherwise you get something from nothing
The concept 'random chance' introduces a whole new level of complexity into a discussion of causation. Be that as it may, it is far from clear how self-awareness is a necessary precondition for "any material," even unto the ultimate development of consciousness itself from such material.
Third, to address your discussion of the He pronoun ...
This was just an example, given as an aside, of an obviously contingent attribute being ascribed to the first cause. More to the point is reflexive consciousness (since that, unlike male gender, is inevitably an attribute of any god).
Second, it does not follow that the First Cause could come into and out of existence.
Here you have simply misread me. I wrote that the First Cause "would [necessarily] have the attribute of not having a beginning," indeed, it is axiomatic to this discussion that it cannot "come into" existence. I was just pointing out that this does not mean it cannot "go out of existence." I.e The First Cause would need to be without beginning, but not necessarily eternal.
First, the first cause must be god. ... first cause would need to be greater than the thing being created
Of the many causes that produce effects are those causes necessarily "greater" than their effects? What might 'greater' even mean here?
You and I shall probably never be able to agree on the answer to what I regard as the central problem here: Might not something fairly innocuous be able to function as the first of all causes? And tempted as I am to open up the ontological argument in the context of the creator being "greater" than creation, we've probably been at this for long enough now, no?
If you claim things can happen without a cause, then that could be shown with a scientific experiment. The law of cause and effect would disagree.
I was only a observing that your claim that "we can show that the universe had a beginning," coupled with the notion that there is no physical cause for that beginning could just as well evidence an object-with-beginning-but-without-cause as it might your postulated undetectable non-physical cause (God). But as I said, it's parenthetical to my actual objection ... after all I began by conceding, for the sake of this discussion, "the postulate of the necessity of cause."
If something has caused the universe to come into being, then it would logically follow that this being would have the attributes of [a] god.
I'm sorry, but this is where I simply cannot agree. It is, imo, the crux of the problem with this 'proof.'
A First Cause, in a world where cause was necessary to beginning, would have the attribute of not having a beginning (it would not need to be eternal, of course, as it might cease once having performed its task of causing), and it would need to have the attribute of being a cause, but everything apart from that is incidental. As you referred to God (i.e. the god known as God) as "He," I pointed out that the attribute of being gendered male is just one example of something that cannot reasonably be attributed to a First Cause qua First Cause (which is not to say the First Cause could not resemble a male human of course, there is simply no logical necessity that it does.) And since, apart from these attempts at logical proof, we know in fact (or would were we Hindu ;) that the Cosmos is caused by (or is a manifestation of) Shakti clearly masculinity is not a necessary attribute either of a First Cause nor of a god(dess).
More seriously the attribute of being reflexively conscious (ie. self-aware) is an attribute that any god, I think, must possess, but which would not follow necessarily from the status of being a First Cause. In other words, the argument from first cause, (accepting the premises on which it is based), strikes me as not being an argument for the existence of any god, but for the existence of a First Cause. It is the imposition of the other divine attributes that strikes me as argument by definition. Alternatively we could see some circularity in the thinking here.
The circular form of this argument might run. 1) Everything non-eternal has a beginning. 2) All things that have a beginning must have a cause. 3) This chain of causation must itself have a beginning. 4) Since God is eternal, He has no beginning and requires no cause. Thus God is the only thing capable of being the beginning of the chain of causation. Now while this might function as an explanation of how a Universe of objects came into being, it cannot obviously function as Proof of God. Without wanting to be rude, I suspect a subtle form of this thinking may possibly be able to influence those, who already possessed of a strong Faith in God, come to the Argument from First Cause, thus making it easy to see all those other attributes of God as being predicated unproblematically to the First Cause.
Yes, so God would be the un-caused first cause since He [sic] is eternal. However, I agree with you, this would not assume the God [sic] of the Hebrew bible, but rather A God [sic] in general; a deity.
I was confused by your capitalisation, which in English usually denotes a proper noun. I carry the general rule even to the gods. Thus 'God' would usually refer to the Hebrew god (esp. where the original Hebrew text has some cognate of El, most commonly Elohim). Your usage apparently varies ... no matter.
Scientifically, we can show that the universe had a beginning, and that it is expanding, and with entropy. There are even mathematical proofs to show there had to be a beginning.
The other view perhaps is that so-called Big Bang is, as I wrote an event horizon, the mere inaccessibility to us of earlier events, being no guarantee of their non-existence. Indeed, my understanding is that there is now even an attempt to point the mathematics at what happened before the Big Bang.
However, accepting your contention that "we can show that the universe had a beginning," and bearing in mind that we cannot therefor find a physical cause that brought it into being: this contention itself is not un-problematic to the Cosmological proof. Instead of the statement "[w]hatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" being true, it may be that "most things which begin have a cause," and however small the set of objects having a beginning but no cause might be, we would have empirical evidence for at least one.
The only other possible argument you might have, is that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting. Eternal big bangs ...
Whether or not that is the only other possible argument, it is, I gather, more or less what is being proposed above. Not that I should pretend to understand far less to endorse this view, I do not need to for because ...
All of this is tangential the to point I was making. You haven't addressed my actual objection to the Argument from First Cause: Namely, that positing a god, God if you like, as the First Cause, involves illegitimately injecting all its the other attributes (including, as you would have it, God's gender for example) of that god into the role of First Cause. There is no necessary connection between having the attribute of being 'eternal' (as bare existence might be), and having, for example, a gender resembling that of XY humanoids [and on the Ontological Argument shouldn't we expect the complete XX ;) ], nor indeed any of the other attributes humans traditionally ascribe to their various gods, most especially being a self-reflective consciousness. As I wrote, that the "First Cause postulated by human thought so neatly resembles a thinking human" really is suspicious.
The Argument from First Cause has always struck me ultimately as unsatisfying, it feels like argument by definition (since a god is being defined as the Cause without origin).
If, accepting the postulate of the necessity of cause ("[w]hatever BEGINS to exist has a cause"), one admits the possibility of a First Cause, then something other than the Hebrew deity Elohim (trans. 'God'), or any other self-reflectively conscious god, might just as easily function as that First Cause. And if there is a god that has always existed than bare (non-conscious) existence must itself be without beginning. The Big Bang may be our event horizon, but it might simply be an event that took place in an inherently eternal cosmos.
That the First Cause postulated by human thought so neatly resembles a thinking human is suspicious.
We're testing two different things here. The apparent 'contradiction' between the results of the two testing regimes might not amount to any contradiction at all.
With fake resume studies we are isolating gender as an independent variable. With gender-blanked genuine resumes OTOH, we are perhaps testing instead which gender generally already possesses the greater portion of relevant qualifications and experience for the particular position. So while at first gloss the BETA study seems to contradict much of the fake resume work, on reflection that is not necessarily so. There may simply be (and likely is) a higher proportion of more qualified men at the relevant level which difference (modest though it appears at ca. 3%) could mask any putative gender preference.
Now there are other considerations of course, eg, in an agency culture where an equal opportunity is already well established, blanking gender relieves the anxiety of including too many of any particular gender on the interview list. Also the nature of the position needs to be considered as not all fake resume studies show a preference for men (from memory a test on child-care worker positions showed one of the most extreme gender preference response ... strongly in favour of female names). If something about a position would recommend to people's preconceptions of what fits particularly female talents, again blanking would be expected to favour men.
However, just by itself, the likely difference between in qualification/experience of one gender (esp. at more senior levels), means that the effects observed in genuine resume studies cannot be taken to contradict the effects observed in those studies where the effect of gender is isolated in purer form.
And de-anonymizing someone is a thought process
For you perhaps. Most of us mere mortals would use computers and data processing (specifically to be criminalised in the proposed legislation).
CAUSING IT TO BE KNOWN TO YOU
There mere fact of an identity becoming, by the unaided powers of mental deduction, known to you is unlikely of itself to attract any liability. Don't fear ... you're safe Sherlock. ;)
You may, however, commit an offence were you actually to identify (i.e. publish the identity of) any de-anonymised individual (in connection with de-anonymised data). Of course if the idenity became known to you because of data processing you conducted for the purposes of de-anonymisation then you might be guilty of the processing offence.
Among the new offences proposed there are two relevant for present purposes: 1) intentionally or recklessly re-identifying an individual from anonymised or pseudo-anonymised data (the 'publication' offence) and 2) knowingly handling (a legal term more commonly associated with handling stolen goods) or processing anonymised data for the purposes of de-anonymisation (the 'processing' offence). That at least, in the absence of statutory text, is what I would take from the Minister's statement of intent.
The "unlimited fine" is remarkable, but is probably intended to capture likely players such as Google.
Are you trying to insult me?
Not at all Alvaro (you can call me Capsaicin ;). I'm trying to encourage the better you to show himself, the one who wrote "I will apologise ... To comply with what I expect from everyone else: do whatever you want, but always take responsibility for your mistakes."
This statement is extremely ambiguous and with many different potential ...
No need to overthink it (you run the risk of appearing to weasle), it's really quite straightforward. The google search I gave you above "(olympic OR olympic-sized) swimming pools of" (quotation marks obviously necessary), throws up about 35,300 results. I've gone 5 pages deep and, at least on my localised version have seen not one instance of it referring to area. Each and every example I encountered describe volume. Honestly, we need hardly have recourse to statistics here.
You are correct it is mainly liquid capacity: water, sewage, oil, low-level nuclear waste and even semen, however also sand, gold, the "space" taken up by mattresses, and even fish make an appearance.
"Most?" Is the the better and honest Alvaro writing?
I can say that it might ... be possible that swimming pools are commonly used as informal way to describe volumes.
It might be possible? Come now.
This is all what you wanted?
What I wanted you not to contradict me when I was correct and you were wrong. This really should have ended, after you first corrected me, when I wrote "[w]hile I can accept that might be true for the land surface of Delaware, or the bullring ... the Olympic swimming pool ... is most assuredly a measure of volume. [new emphasis]" And if not then, certainly when I gave you that first link (and as an aside I think it was researched not by "someone like [me]," but rather by someone like you, i.e. a metrologist)
Really you wasted a lot of time by not accepting much earlier, that a) OSP is commonly used as a measure of volume and b) the idea that all "whacky" measures are necessarily about 1 or 2, but never 3 dimensions, was wrong-minded. I take it, however begruddingly and hedged in possibility, you do now.
Perhaps this was an English usage issue, (though your English appears faultless), but the next time I "assure" you of a fact, have your evidence to prove me wrong marshalled before contradicting me. I do take very well to being proven wrong ... it being such a rare pleasure.
Cheers.
That's not much an apology Alvaro. Have you no honour?
PS: are you seriously believing that I (or any other person with a bit of knowledge) will be accepting swimming pools as a valid unit of measurement?!
I'm not askling you to accept it as a "valid" unit of measurement. I'm asking you to admit it is commonly used by the media to describe volume, and I'm asking you to accept your theory that "none of these wacky units of measurement refers to 3D/volume" because 3D is too difficult for ordinary people to grasp, is demonstrably false.
I will apologise right now. Why am I explaining all this you might wonder? To comply with what I expect from everyone else: do whatever you want, but always take responsibility for your mistakes
If that be so Alvaro, I will await with anticipation your apology for the mistake of correcting me as to the fact that Olympic swimming pools is a popular measure of volume. (and not of area).
I'm a dumb fool
Ah you've attempted include yourself (not sure this is actually possible), glad to be of assistance.
I hope you die in a fire.
The irony of fate being what is is that this will probably happen now. Not only to me, but to my lovely wife and our 4 and 2 year old daughters as well. Well done you!
If you notice me stop posting ...
And if you're reading Slashdot, and you haven't been harassed, you're a stupid piece of shit. There. It's back at 100%.
Well no. I'm proud to be a stupid piece of shit, so telling me that isn't harassment. Even on the untoward assumption that 100% of Slashdot readers read that particular comment, there's enough of us around to stop you getting your 100%. :p
And in any case, you forgot about yourself.
This wasn't exactly the kind of external reference which I was expecting (as far as this article might have been written by a person like you ...
A simple "thank you, I didn't know about the use of all these measures", or "sorry my bad, you were right all along" would have sufficed there. In ignoring a site of that "kind" you run the risk of appearing not merely to be ignorant about the subject matter, but of being willfully so. [Pro tip: Whenever you have clearly been shown to be wrong, a fortiori on a matter of fact, be big enough immediately and gracefully to admit your error and move on.]
I was expecting samples of actual usage in the kind of informal contexts where these units are meant to be used; for example, a non-technical article in a newspaper providing a graphical idea about a big volume by actually relying on swimming pools.
You mean like this article ? Or like Melbourne Water's fact sheet on the Thomson Reservoir which gives the reservoir's capacity not only as "1,068 billion litres", but also as "2x Sydney Harbours," "628 x MCGs" and "427,000 x Olympic-sized swimming pools?" [Just to reference some other measures of volume listed on that very informative page.] Do you need any more? You could always use Google yourself, you know.
And this "expectation" of yours? It was reasonably founded, no doubt, on the pertinence and quality of the external references you provided, yes?
BTW, thanks for quoting me on things which I never said/thought
Don't be disingenuous! I never "quoted" anything you didn't say, the analogous arguments which no reasonable reader could take to constitute a direct quoting notwithstanding. And I already conceded the second, in which one party (you), was insisting on the basis of some cognitive theory that a well-known measure of volume (litres in place of Olympic swimming pools per analogy) could not be a measure of volume, was the fairer. And indeed, not only it was a fair and accurate account of what you were doing, it was based largely, without any implication that those were direct quotes, on the actual words used.
Anyway, writing this last comment ...
Not apparently being a man of your word, you've promised me twice your comment was the last. Maybe it will be a case of "third time lucky?"
And since you refuse to believe me try this: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Lis...
Fairer analog argument:
Capsaicin: Instead of measuring the length (in metres) of an iceberg, or the area (in hectares) we should be measuring its volume in litres.
CustomSolvers2: Everything in the real 3D world we live in is associated with a volume, but all these measure metres, hectares and litres are meant to give people an X/Y view by not minding the Z component (height). It is much easier for us to understand 2D concepts
Capsaicin: No that is not true for litres which is a measure of volume.
CustomSolvers2: Sorry to be a bit serious on this part, but none of these units of measurement refers to 3D/volume. It is always 2D/area or even 1D/length. As explained, getting a proper grasp of 3D dimensions is quite counter-intuitive
Capsaicin: No litres are used to measure volume
CustomSolvers2: Your argument mostly consists in repeating the same mantra over and over without trying to understand/dismiss my points.
CustomSolvers2: There are no female movie starts because all movies stars are men, because, [some theory]
Capsaicin: Well Elizabeth was an movie star and she was woman.
CustomSolvers2: No Elizabeth Taylor was a man. Sorry to be a bit serious on this part, but all movie starts are men, as explained [some theory]
&tc.
FFS mate!
Your remaining post doesn't seem to make too much sense either:
I assure you: There has been no fault in my written English. If it does not "make sense" you need to exercise more effort in comprehending it.
your argument mostly consists in repeating the same mantra over and over
Oh dear God the IRONY!
I understand (and dismiss) your point.
The problem is your theory about all of these whacky measurements being about 1D or 2D is falsified by the use, ad nauseum, of the Olympic Swimming Pool --certainly by the media here in Australia --as a measure for volume as opposed to area. Do you get that simple fact, or will you force me to repeat myself yet again? Which is the very reason I introduced it, because unlike "bigger than Madrid, as big as Delaware, soccer stadiums" all of which speak of area, we ought to consider the volume of an iceberg, which the common use of the Olympic Swimming pool does. Sheesh!
As to your point is that a proper grasp of 3D dimensions is counter-intuitive, I addressed that by asking you to imagine standing on the edge of an empty swimming pool without being aware of the sides of the pool, something which you will find you cannot in all honesty do. It will not be a pool you are imagining, but a carpet. I put it to you the a grasp of a box as a 3D container is not counter-intuitive.
I didn't enjoy either the funny or the serious parts of this small chat with you
Well you shouldn't have contradicted me in the first place about the actual use of one of these made up units about which you plainly have no knowledge. Yeah? You really didn't need, in all ignorance as the the facts, to go down the "serious part" ... your choice. But look, I'm so sorry that the facts don't agree with your pet theory about "stupid units" that must really hurt.
Who says that? Just because we are forced to let them write "beer" on it doesn't mean we have to accept that as truth.
It's the money as well: I think as late as the 1990s Germany used to charge an excise on the "beer" imported form other European countries. She was stopped from doing so ... and that despite some German politician's attempt to argue a "public health exemption" on the basis, from memory, that "the average German male derives up to 40% of his daily calorific intake from beer!" :)
Sorry to be a bit [wrong] on this part, but none of these wacky units of measurement refers to 3D/volume. It is always 2D/area or even 1D/length
Sorry, but no they are not, as the use of Olympic swimming pool demonstrates! A body of water of almost 10 megalitres will be described as being "4 Olympic swimming pools." It is used as a measure of volume, not as a measure of area. Similarly an area of 1 1/2 ha or so will be described as being about "10 football fields."
As explained, getting a proper grasp of 3D dimensions is quite counter-intuitive and, as such, completely against all what these references are about (= providing an intuitive understanding for virtually everyone).
As explained, this reasoning does not apply to a swimming pool. Seriously mate, picture in your head for a moment standing on the edge of an empty swimming pool, are you seriously telling me cannot imagine the sides?! Are you even telling me you can picture a pool without the sides? Even if we fill it with a transparent liquid virtually everyone will imagine a pool in 3 dimensions, in the way the will not for the surface of land or the reach of a city. That is why, on the very reasoning you give, it is used to provide an intuitive understanding of volume.
In the SIUA (Spanish Invented Units Association), we don't recognise the SI either. So and as far as you don't mind, I will continue sticking to my bullrings.
Well look I do mind! And I say that there should be action at a European level to eliminate this Spanish heresy! I mean if the Belgians have to accept that English chocolate is actually chocolate (maybe not for much longer) and the Germans have to accept non-Reinheitsgebote Euro-Pils is actually beer, then it's only fair that the bullring (along with all other SIUA measures) be outlawed, to be replaced by the UEFA standard (indeed FIFA standard) football pitch.
Sorry. While I can accept that might be true for the land surface of Delaware, or the bullring (not that either are meaningful measures), the Olympic swimming pool (though not a particularly European standard perhaps) is most assuredly a measure of volume every bit as much as the football (pitch|field) (not the "stadium" per se of course, as this varies from stadium to stadium) is the measure of area (the height of the grass notwithstanding). You are meant to think about the height of a swimming pool (in fact it's difficult not to).
this post is expected to be eminently understood as a joke
I'm afraid this is no laughing matter. Just remember how many people had to die in the Napoleonic Wars to bring us these standards. Before you denigrate them any further, just remember the next World War will be fought with nuclear weapons.
I only recognise as valid area units the bullring and the soccer stadium.
I'm sorry but the bullring is not a recognised SI unit ... and the football pitch is, as you say, is an area unit. Surely in the case of an iceberg volume is what we want to describe ... in other words, we need this measured in olympic size swimming pools.
There is a reason practicing law without a license is a crime. It is to ensure accountability. If a lawyer gives you bad advice, he can be sued for malpractice, lose his license, or even go to jail.
Well I'm not sure where you are where poor legal advice (from a suitably qualified legal professional) can result in a custodial sentence ... but yes, there's a bloody good reason that you take your advice from a practising [sic] lawyer: Most importantly, her liability insurance will go some way to repairing any loss the lawyer's incompetently given advice might cause you.
The first rule of legal practice when setting up a deal for a client is to ensure there is either a) an insured (or otherwise liquid) party who can be sued to recover any loss your client might suffer as the result of their (in-)actions, OR b) insurance taken directly by the client, for any likely negative eventuality leading to loss. That rule is broken at the very beginning in acting on the advice of a non-insured person! Not a good way to start.
That being said, for trivialities such as trying to blag your way out of paying a parking fine, the form letters this site apparently spits out are unlikely to cost you any more than the fine you'd be paying anyway. So unless it gets more serious than that (eg. robotic conveyancing) I don't see the site being sued. And hey, who knows, you might get lucky and scare some official off. Even criminal action, on the basis you state above, is taken against it is questionable ... does simply supplying form letters really amount to legal practice? Depends on the specific statutes I guess.
[Disclaimer: IAAL, but a non-practising one ... trying to explain to my mum that the reason I refuse to do her legal work is not because I'm a lazy ingrate brat is ... challenging.]