Think of it this way. Antivirus software is like the Marginot Line. It will keep out most invaders. But the really threatening ones will simply drive around it and disable it from the inside.
Her setup is more like a fortress filled with cruise missiles that can be launched with lots of advanced warning of attack.
Both have costs. One is more effective than the other. So, saying that something expensive and incomplete like the Marginot Line provides increased security may be technically true, but it's kind of a moot point.
I have some experience with this sort of thing. Not a difficult setup, but it requires some knowledge and effort to maintain. So the cost is rather high, and hardware requirements somewhat steep. So you need a competent administrator with adequate resources.
The benefit, of course, is that it ends up being much more secure than antivirus software. Useful for when you make a living suing powerful organizations with the means to retaliate against you, while still being able to download porn on the corporate network.
Physical security is still important, though. Depending on who it is that's motivated to break into your systems, and their ability and willingness to simply "disappear" you or your employees when hacking attempts fail. I'd say it's not a setup for the faint of heart.
Not at all. A locomotive is not a hybrid, as there is only a single type of motor used for motive power.
Unless you have some reference for the first use of the word "hybrid" in regards to vehicles, I think you're making an unwarranted distinction. "Hybrid" can refer to the power source just as easily as the "motor".
According to Wikipedia, the first hybrid was a series hybrid. It was called a "Mixte", which means "mixed" in German. The first parallel hybrid, which was patented four years later, was also referred to as "mixed drive".
That isn't scary. It means that, due to the current recession, those people will upgrade to Firefox instead of a new version of Windows. A portion of them may even move on to other Open Source programs and operating systems.
Truly insightful. This is exactly the reason that you should always hack into the main Windows server and run your programs there when needed.
Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 1
Iron fillings don't flow in the field. They don't move. They simply align with the field.
But they also align with each other. The external field is amplified in the locations where there are iron filings in alignment with the field. Each iron filing is more affected by the magnet field generated by the other iron filings than it is by the external magnetic field, which is what then causes them to move and form into lines.
At a certain distance from any given iron filing, the force exerted by the positive end of the filing is exactly counterbalanced by the force exerted by the negative end. The same is true of the "line" of iron filings as a whole. This distance is related to the strength of the external magnetic field in which all the iron filings are contained.
As the field strength drops off, the lines of filings should become closer to each other as the iron filings are less able to influence each other. This is the opposite of the (imaginary) field lines which are normally spaced closer in areas of higher field strength.
Now let me do a better job of explaining my point.
You said:
AS people have trouble with the abstract idea... of what is right and wrong.
I said: No they don't.
You said:
AS people have trouble with... the application of what is right and wrong.
I said: No they don't.
And for the record, I have had excellent reading comprehension from an early age, in multiple languages. I also paid attention in junior high English classes and thus understand the process of diagramming sentences and the difference between what you said and what you now claim to have meant. So with that in mind, I'm going to harp on this point for a few more paragraphs, mostly because I'm an asshole and doing so makes me happy.
"AS people" have a problem with the application of abstract ideas, as should everyone. We should all want "lines" and definitions of right and wrong to be as explicit as possible. This is the entire reason we have explicit systems of written laws and interpretive courts and constitutions and enumerated rights and throngs of professionals, academics and opinionists employed to analyze and dissect them for consistency and accuracy. Society expends a lot of effort to promulgate appropriate societal "norms" in as consistent and fair a way as humanly possible.
In fact, let's take a prominent Aspie as an example: Bill Gates. Do you think, when he sent his infamous letter to the Homebrew Computer Club, that Bill Gates didn't understand the abstract idea of copyright? Do you think he didn't understand the application of copyright? Of course he did. What he perhaps didn't understand, and what he definitely had a problem with, was the inconsistent application of the abstract idea of copyright!
Then you said:
AS people have trouble knowing where the line is when it is not cut and dried.
This really just makes no sense and, like most of your examples, also doesn't apply to "AS people" exclusively. By definition, no one knows "where the line is" when it is not "cut and dried". Furthermore, it's not that difficult to make the line "cut and dried". All it requires is that those acting in good faith refrain from wantonly distorting the positions of the other side exactly as you did in your original post when you whizzed all over the line and equated photoshopping heads with taking pictures of naked children, and attacked a completely uninvolved group of people.
This was nice (and telling)
It's more telling that you felt the need in your OP to denigrate a group of people whom you're attempting to paint as morally defective, given no prompting whatsoever.
In fact, I'll go further. You seem typical of the type of statist authoritarian fascist psychopath who prefers a state of confusion, fear and arbitrary punishment to one of rational rule of law; the type of people this country has had far too many of lately.
Stop dishing out your diagnoses of other people's "problems". If you have a specific complaint, feel free to complain loudly and write your legislators. Otherwise, don't blame consistent application of due process and the rule of law for what you see as the failings of the US judicial system.
AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong.
"AS people" don't have trouble with "right and wrong". They have trouble with the imposition of arbitrary standards. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble with abiding by more rigid standards.
Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal norms
They don't have a problem understanding societal norms. They just refuse to guess, estimate and bullshit their way through situations the way that most people do.
I, for instance, understand quite a bit more about societal "norms" than more average people. But that is because I have derived most of them from their root causes rather than using fuzzy logic to guess at the "right" answer, as most average people appear to.
As pointed out, "norms" change, usually over a span of decades or centuries. This indicates that their underlying logic is far more complex than can be accurately surmised by a person of average intelligence, let alone any system dependent on the intuitional ability of an average member of law enforcement. The fact that this arbitrary authority has been stripped from those unable to apply it consistently demonstrates progress for our species.
Let me put it this way: It's not that I don't understand your wishes. It's that they are irrelevant. I am not interested in having your "norms" imposed on me. I am objectively superior to most people.
If anything, you should consider yourself lucky that I don't impose my "norms" on you.
the question I want to ask you is what constitutes "basic logical thought"?
Cause and effect and internal consistency, A=A. That's the easiest way to destroy any illogical statement or argument. Show that it is internally inconsistent, that terms are redefined in the course of evaluation, or that effects precede causes.
How would you decide which logic is the better one? A gut feeling that the rules of your logic are better than another's?
By induction, the same way I would evaluate any other hypothesis. The fact that some hypothetical logical system can be wholly explained by and contained within some other logical system, with the same or greater degree of consistency and completeness, makes the broader logical system superior to the more limited.
That having been said, I certainly recognize logical systems that cannot be wholly subsumed by classical logic, such as quantum logic and fuzzy logic. I would not classify either as invalid in all cases, though I recognize the limitations of each. I recognize the limitations of classical logic, for that matter. In practice I tend to utilize ternary logic.
There exists something such that if it is a unicorn than all things are unicorns.
So I would say that it makes no sense to ask whether this statement is "true" or not. In fact this question sounds motivated by a somewhat superficial understanding of classical logic, such as would be imparted by lists of equations and truth tables on Wikipedia. This is a proposition whose truth depends on the truth of the antecedent. No more, no less.
If true, actually even if not true, accepting this statement as a valid proposition would cause me to re-evaluate my concept of unicorns.
As for intuitionistic logic, I am not familiar enough with it to comment.
And it doesn't matter. As the prototypical "obsolete" 29 year old from the example, I can tell you it doesn't matter whether the 24 year old is full of shit or not. Shit sells.
When I was applying to ivy league schools, literally every piece of advice I got was to lie out your ass. Lie about your achievements. Write your own recommendations. Just pull stuff out of thin air. Make it as flamboyant as possible, and as convincing as you can. As far as they know, you're a genius black inventor mathematician cellist who can write upside-down and backwards using your little toes. Books, articles, current and former students; they all said the same thing: Give admissions staffers the unbelievably entertaining bullshit they want to hear. Hell, you should even tell them that you have some plan to pay back the ridiculous loans they give you.
And judging by what I've witnessed over the last ten years, that was absolutely the correct advice. Yale, Harvard, the school doesn't even matter. Most of them didn't do well. Some didn't even graduate. But, one by one, a steady stream of the the best liars these institutions have to offer have stood up and lied over and over again to the rest of us and become filthy rich and wildly successful doing so. They have swindled us, stolen from us, violated our rights, led us into wars and destruction and profited greatly by it. All the while giving back to their alma maters in the process.
It doesn't matter that this group of people are investing millions of dollars into completely unproductive Web 2.0 bullshit with no viable revenue stream. It doesn't matter that the money they are frittering away is ultimately borrowed from foreigners, swindled from the elderlies' retirement funds, or doled out via government "stimulus".
It doesn't matter that they are sinking the US economy in the process, wasting an entire generation's productive efforts on shiny trinkets that will be unceremoniously duplicated by overseas competitors if by accident they ever attain any real value.
No, no. What matters is that they are productive, successful "entrepreneurs" who are "innovating". And if they can find an ambitious young 24-year-old with an idea to spy on his neighbor's porn surfing and advertise divorce lawyers to his wife, that'll be the next big thing. Because it'll be easy to patent and will give a 2% greater return than a business plan to manufacture automated fruit-pickers.
I think doctor Hawking is missing a step. Natural selection did not manage to produce humans without any external information. Humans are Mammals. Most (all?) Mammals tend to pass on behavioral traits in a non-genetic fashion from parents to offspring. So another major step in the evolutionary process would have been the appearance of animals whose mothers continue to care for them after birth, and impart higher-order influences on their offspring other than the contents of their genes.
It sounds like Spain just decided to purchase carbon credits from other countries to offset it's production. That's about the worst possible way to go about it. I'm sure they created lots of jobs in the process, just none in Spain.
"The commercial market doesn't just want high efficiency, they want the device to be optimised to the environment," he says. "In the past we measured performance in dollars per watt. Now it's cents per kilowatt-hour that's more important."
This actually sounds like they're on the right track, but until I see prices I'm not convinced the process is a cost-saver. Also it sounds like it's only useful in concentrating designs.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. Implemented correctly, a carbon tax could fairly easily reduce the unemployment rate through the creation of "green jobs".
In the short-term, at least. In the long term, we're all unemployed.
Oh, we aren't taxing Carbon. We're supposedly taxing greenhouse gases. But we aren't really even doing that. Cow farts are completely off the table due to agricultural lobbies. Coal-burning utilities and industries are receiving special treatment, since Democrats get lots of votes from coal and steel-heavy regions. Carbon capture will end up being a wasteful boondoggle. It's not even clear yet whether imports of worthless Chinese trinkets will be taxed based on their carbon usage.
Basically the only thing being singled out for special taxes is oil, which is somewhere in the middle of the list of fossil fuels contributing to global warming. The whole thing is a green-washed sham designed to tax foreign oil in favor of local energy production, without incurring the ire of supernational organizations like the WTO. It's not that we don't need more local energy production, but to pretend that the proposed exception-laden US cap-and-trade system will do anything to significantly reduce greenhouse gases is naive.
No actually on second thought the parent was right. DNA is quaternary. Each strand can contain all four nucleotides in any order. I was making a dumb assumption and my previous post was incorrect. Please mod down.
The standard DNA double-helix is binary. It is just redundant, which is the reason there are four molecules involved. Each molecule only ever binds to one other, so there are only two possible combinations.
We have had the technology for economical seasonal energy storage at over 50% efficiency for fifty years. That may not sound like much, but efficiency is meaningless when production costs are low enough. Your post is a bit hyperbolic.
He doesn't consume a low amount of energy. He's actually pretty close to average for a household that isn't 100% electric appliances. You, on the other hand, consume an ungodly amount of energy.
Since I'm guessing you don't live in a desert, 2500 kWh in a 2000 sq ft home during a rainy month is ridiculously high. What do you do for a living that allows you to be able to afford such lunacy and still not recognize that your AC isn't working properly or you have something wired wrong? Do you grow pot in your house or something? Are you a stripper?
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it this way. Antivirus software is like the Marginot Line. It will keep out most invaders. But the really threatening ones will simply drive around it and disable it from the inside.
Her setup is more like a fortress filled with cruise missiles that can be launched with lots of advanced warning of attack.
Both have costs. One is more effective than the other. So, saying that something expensive and incomplete like the Marginot Line provides increased security may be technically true, but it's kind of a moot point.
I have some experience with this sort of thing. Not a difficult setup, but it requires some knowledge and effort to maintain. So the cost is rather high, and hardware requirements somewhat steep. So you need a competent administrator with adequate resources.
The benefit, of course, is that it ends up being much more secure than antivirus software. Useful for when you make a living suing powerful organizations with the means to retaliate against you, while still being able to download porn on the corporate network.
Physical security is still important, though. Depending on who it is that's motivated to break into your systems, and their ability and willingness to simply "disappear" you or your employees when hacking attempts fail. I'd say it's not a setup for the faint of heart.
Not at all. A locomotive is not a hybrid, as there is only a single type of motor used for motive power.
Unless you have some reference for the first use of the word "hybrid" in regards to vehicles, I think you're making an unwarranted distinction. "Hybrid" can refer to the power source just as easily as the "motor".
According to Wikipedia, the first hybrid was a series hybrid. It was called a "Mixte", which means "mixed" in German. The first parallel hybrid, which was patented four years later, was also referred to as "mixed drive".
BMI is inversely proportional to height. So, I think you mean a 5-foot tall, heavily-muscled man.
That isn't scary. It means that, due to the current recession, those people will upgrade to Firefox instead of a new version of Windows. A portion of them may even move on to other Open Source programs and operating systems.
Truly insightful. This is exactly the reason that you should always hack into the main Windows server and run your programs there when needed.
Iron fillings don't flow in the field. They don't move. They simply align with the field.
But they also align with each other. The external field is amplified in the locations where there are iron filings in alignment with the field. Each iron filing is more affected by the magnet field generated by the other iron filings than it is by the external magnetic field, which is what then causes them to move and form into lines.
At a certain distance from any given iron filing, the force exerted by the positive end of the filing is exactly counterbalanced by the force exerted by the negative end. The same is true of the "line" of iron filings as a whole. This distance is related to the strength of the external magnetic field in which all the iron filings are contained.
As the field strength drops off, the lines of filings should become closer to each other as the iron filings are less able to influence each other. This is the opposite of the (imaginary) field lines which are normally spaced closer in areas of higher field strength.
Can you confirm or correct any of this?
Thanks for proving that point for me.
No problem.
Now let me do a better job of explaining my point.
You said:
AS people have trouble with the abstract idea... of what is right and wrong.
I said:
No they don't.
You said:
AS people have trouble with... the application of what is right and wrong.
I said:
No they don't.
And for the record, I have had excellent reading comprehension from an early age, in multiple languages. I also paid attention in junior high English classes and thus understand the process of diagramming sentences and the difference between what you said and what you now claim to have meant. So with that in mind, I'm going to harp on this point for a few more paragraphs, mostly because I'm an asshole and doing so makes me happy.
"AS people" have a problem with the application of abstract ideas, as should everyone. We should all want "lines" and definitions of right and wrong to be as explicit as possible. This is the entire reason we have explicit systems of written laws and interpretive courts and constitutions and enumerated rights and throngs of professionals, academics and opinionists employed to analyze and dissect them for consistency and accuracy. Society expends a lot of effort to promulgate appropriate societal "norms" in as consistent and fair a way as humanly possible.
In fact, let's take a prominent Aspie as an example: Bill Gates. Do you think, when he sent his infamous letter to the Homebrew Computer Club, that Bill Gates didn't understand the abstract idea of copyright? Do you think he didn't understand the application of copyright? Of course he did. What he perhaps didn't understand, and what he definitely had a problem with, was the inconsistent application of the abstract idea of copyright!
Then you said:
AS people have trouble knowing where the line is when it is not cut and dried.
This really just makes no sense and, like most of your examples, also doesn't apply to "AS people" exclusively. By definition, no one knows "where the line is" when it is not "cut and dried". Furthermore, it's not that difficult to make the line "cut and dried". All it requires is that those acting in good faith refrain from wantonly distorting the positions of the other side exactly as you did in your original post when you whizzed all over the line and equated photoshopping heads with taking pictures of naked children, and attacked a completely uninvolved group of people.
This was nice (and telling)
It's more telling that you felt the need in your OP to denigrate a group of people whom you're attempting to paint as morally defective, given no prompting whatsoever.
In fact, I'll go further. You seem typical of the type of statist authoritarian fascist psychopath who prefers a state of confusion, fear and arbitrary punishment to one of rational rule of law; the type of people this country has had far too many of lately.
Stop dishing out your diagnoses of other people's "problems". If you have a specific complaint, feel free to complain loudly and write your legislators. Otherwise, don't blame consistent application of due process and the rule of law for what you see as the failings of the US judicial system.
AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong.
"AS people" don't have trouble with "right and wrong". They have trouble with the imposition of arbitrary standards. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble with abiding by more rigid standards.
Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal norms
They don't have a problem understanding societal norms. They just refuse to guess, estimate and bullshit their way through situations the way that most people do.
I, for instance, understand quite a bit more about societal "norms" than more average people. But that is because I have derived most of them from their root causes rather than using fuzzy logic to guess at the "right" answer, as most average people appear to.
As pointed out, "norms" change, usually over a span of decades or centuries. This indicates that their underlying logic is far more complex than can be accurately surmised by a person of average intelligence, let alone any system dependent on the intuitional ability of an average member of law enforcement. The fact that this arbitrary authority has been stripped from those unable to apply it consistently demonstrates progress for our species.
Let me put it this way: It's not that I don't understand your wishes. It's that they are irrelevant. I am not interested in having your "norms" imposed on me. I am objectively superior to most people.
If anything, you should consider yourself lucky that I don't impose my "norms" on you.
the question I want to ask you is what constitutes "basic logical thought"?
Cause and effect and internal consistency, A=A. That's the easiest way to destroy any illogical statement or argument. Show that it is internally inconsistent, that terms are redefined in the course of evaluation, or that effects precede causes.
How would you decide which logic is the better one? A gut feeling that the rules of your logic are better than another's?
By induction, the same way I would evaluate any other hypothesis. The fact that some hypothetical logical system can be wholly explained by and contained within some other logical system, with the same or greater degree of consistency and completeness, makes the broader logical system superior to the more limited.
That having been said, I certainly recognize logical systems that cannot be wholly subsumed by classical logic, such as quantum logic and fuzzy logic. I would not classify either as invalid in all cases, though I recognize the limitations of each. I recognize the limitations of classical logic, for that matter. In practice I tend to utilize ternary logic.
There exists something such that if it is a unicorn than all things are unicorns.
So I would say that it makes no sense to ask whether this statement is "true" or not. In fact this question sounds motivated by a somewhat superficial understanding of classical logic, such as would be imparted by lists of equations and truth tables on Wikipedia. This is a proposition whose truth depends on the truth of the antecedent. No more, no less.
If true, actually even if not true, accepting this statement as a valid proposition would cause me to re-evaluate my concept of unicorns.
As for intuitionistic logic, I am not familiar enough with it to comment.
Oh hey, you're an actual fascist. That's funny that you purport to categorize others' thinking as defective.
This does not change the fact that they are negativity affecting society as a whole.
1) One cannot affect the whole without affecting any part.
2) Laws which are not complete enough to encompass all crimes should be completed.
3) It is better to free the guilty than to punish the innocent.
4) Citizens have a right to due process of law.
With which of these statements do you disagree?
This isn't surprising. Meth is a known aphrodesiac.
Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child's body and see how their answers change.
the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman
And you've demonstrated that non-autism-spectrum people can't read or engage in basic logical thought.
And it doesn't matter. As the prototypical "obsolete" 29 year old from the example, I can tell you it doesn't matter whether the 24 year old is full of shit or not. Shit sells.
When I was applying to ivy league schools, literally every piece of advice I got was to lie out your ass. Lie about your achievements. Write your own recommendations. Just pull stuff out of thin air. Make it as flamboyant as possible, and as convincing as you can. As far as they know, you're a genius black inventor mathematician cellist who can write upside-down and backwards using your little toes. Books, articles, current and former students; they all said the same thing: Give admissions staffers the unbelievably entertaining bullshit they want to hear. Hell, you should even tell them that you have some plan to pay back the ridiculous loans they give you.
And judging by what I've witnessed over the last ten years, that was absolutely the correct advice. Yale, Harvard, the school doesn't even matter. Most of them didn't do well. Some didn't even graduate. But, one by one, a steady stream of the the best liars these institutions have to offer have stood up and lied over and over again to the rest of us and become filthy rich and wildly successful doing so. They have swindled us, stolen from us, violated our rights, led us into wars and destruction and profited greatly by it. All the while giving back to their alma maters in the process.
It doesn't matter that this group of people are investing millions of dollars into completely unproductive Web 2.0 bullshit with no viable revenue stream. It doesn't matter that the money they are frittering away is ultimately borrowed from foreigners, swindled from the elderlies' retirement funds, or doled out via government "stimulus".
It doesn't matter that they are sinking the US economy in the process, wasting an entire generation's productive efforts on shiny trinkets that will be unceremoniously duplicated by overseas competitors if by accident they ever attain any real value.
No, no. What matters is that they are productive, successful "entrepreneurs" who are "innovating". And if they can find an ambitious young 24-year-old with an idea to spy on his neighbor's porn surfing and advertise divorce lawyers to his wife, that'll be the next big thing. Because it'll be easy to patent and will give a 2% greater return than a business plan to manufacture automated fruit-pickers.
I think doctor Hawking is missing a step. Natural selection did not manage to produce humans without any external information. Humans are Mammals. Most (all?) Mammals tend to pass on behavioral traits in a non-genetic fashion from parents to offspring. So another major step in the evolutionary process would have been the appearance of animals whose mothers continue to care for them after birth, and impart higher-order influences on their offspring other than the contents of their genes.
Spain tried that.
Then they didn't do it correctly, did they?
It sounds like Spain just decided to purchase carbon credits from other countries to offset it's production. That's about the worst possible way to go about it. I'm sure they created lots of jobs in the process, just none in Spain.
"The commercial market doesn't just want high efficiency, they want the device to be optimised to the environment," he says. "In the past we measured performance in dollars per watt. Now it's cents per kilowatt-hour that's more important."
This actually sounds like they're on the right track, but until I see prices I'm not convinced the process is a cost-saver. Also it sounds like it's only useful in concentrating designs.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. Implemented correctly, a carbon tax could fairly easily reduce the unemployment rate through the creation of "green jobs".
In the short-term, at least. In the long term, we're all unemployed.
Oh, we aren't taxing Carbon. We're supposedly taxing greenhouse gases. But we aren't really even doing that. Cow farts are completely off the table due to agricultural lobbies. Coal-burning utilities and industries are receiving special treatment, since Democrats get lots of votes from coal and steel-heavy regions. Carbon capture will end up being a wasteful boondoggle. It's not even clear yet whether imports of worthless Chinese trinkets will be taxed based on their carbon usage.
Basically the only thing being singled out for special taxes is oil, which is somewhere in the middle of the list of fossil fuels contributing to global warming. The whole thing is a green-washed sham designed to tax foreign oil in favor of local energy production, without incurring the ire of supernational organizations like the WTO. It's not that we don't need more local energy production, but to pretend that the proposed exception-laden US cap-and-trade system will do anything to significantly reduce greenhouse gases is naive.
That means it's not really been tested enough
Despite years of personal observation along these lines, I find it difficult to disagree with this assessment. Where can I sign up for a grant?
No actually on second thought the parent was right. DNA is quaternary. Each strand can contain all four nucleotides in any order. I was making a dumb assumption and my previous post was incorrect. Please mod down.
The standard DNA double-helix is binary. It is just redundant, which is the reason there are four molecules involved. Each molecule only ever binds to one other, so there are only two possible combinations.
We have had the technology for economical seasonal energy storage at over 50% efficiency for fifty years. That may not sound like much, but efficiency is meaningless when production costs are low enough. Your post is a bit hyperbolic.
In fact, soon other planets will have it too.
He doesn't consume a low amount of energy. He's actually pretty close to average for a household that isn't 100% electric appliances. You, on the other hand, consume an ungodly amount of energy.
Since I'm guessing you don't live in a desert, 2500 kWh in a 2000 sq ft home during a rainy month is ridiculously high. What do you do for a living that allows you to be able to afford such lunacy and still not recognize that your AC isn't working properly or you have something wired wrong? Do you grow pot in your house or something? Are you a stripper?
Yes, I'm aware of that.
I'm just wondering what makes you think any of that constitutes "extra" heat.
Is there even a single energy production method that doesn't result in "extra" heat being released into the environment?