Here's an experiment, if you don't believe me. Go out onto a street, accost an average-looking housewife, and try to tell her about Jesus. Now accost another one and try to tell her about string theory. Dollars to donuts you'll get the same reaction from both.
Not sure what you're getting at, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, BUT...
You'd get the same reaction if you were to tell her that Owen moving to the Gunners next season may be a good thing on paper, but there's far from a unanimous warm welcome for him.
So does that mean football opinion (soccer for you colonials;-> ) is essentially a religious belief? Of course you can apply that thinking to ANY subject, including sport. Existentially you'd be right, but practically there's a line to be drawn between universally accepted "truths" and faith based beliefs. I draw that line between science and religion. YMMV, but your experiment doesn't help explain the difference.
Imagine you are an alien who has just parked yourself in orbit around earth. Where would you land first, and why?
a) Look at a map, and select the best spot geographically. Why land there? (Australia, large island? Hawaii, small and remote island? Amazon, lots of greenery? Panama, "conduit" between land masses?)
b) Listen to radio/broadcast noise - select a noisy place, or a quiet place? (Europe, N.America... or Siberia?)
c) Look at artificial structures - which indicate the best place to land by? (New York, lots of skyscrapers - Great Wall of China, loooong structure - Pyramids, large and ancient?)
d) Search for mineral deposits - land in the Middle East for oil? What about gold, diamonds, or even large iron deposits?
Think like a peaceful alien, like a warfaring alien, like a diplomatic alien, like a resource prospecting alien.
This site posts photos found by Rich Vogel. It's a mundane, yet mildly voyeuristic peek into what other people do with digital cameras.
"The Found Photos started earlier this year while searching for mp3's using a filesharing program. I was searching through someones shared file list, and saw a folder named 'pictures'. I downloaded the folder and found 20 or so digital camera pictures of this persons life, taking pictures of himself, his friends etc. It made me wonder what else was out there, and after searching for more photos I found hundreds, thousands of them shared to everyone."
Well, you're right if you view American politics in a vacuum. When you look at American politics within a global perspective, the author of the GP was right.
I'm not sure the point about directors was particularly valid, though I think I get when he was trying to say.
I certainly get the feeling that there's a sizeable portion of the US that thinks "liberal" is a dirty word. In discussions elsewhere I've bumped into a lot of Americans who think so too. Granted, they're lefties, but that's exactly the point.
Perhaps the word everyone is searching for is "radical", rather than "liberal". And no skateboard references please:-)
"Adressen på den hjemmeside, du ønsker at finde, er enten forkert, eller også eksisterer hjemmesiden ikke længere. Du kan prøve følgende: Tjekke om adressen er stavet rigtigt. Bemærk at det har betydning, om du bruger store eller små bogstaver!"
that may as well have been the writeup, because i don't understand a word of it.
The people in charge of firing the people in charge of the write up, have just been fired.
I had a nice long rebuttal worked out, and then thought I'd save my time for someone who can hold an intelligent discussion, rather than for someone who thinks ad hominen is part of thought provoking argument.
Humans are far more prone to error than any decently-coded program. Any program more complex than "Hello, World!" is prone to errors because humans are the ones programming it. What's likely to produce more errors, counting the number of voting slips, or having a human-written program to do it for you? Your argument fails under it's own weight.
Why do you think we even have computers in the first place? Because they're more reliable and more efficient. This is not the reason that computers are useful. Computers are useful because they are faster at doing things than humans are. Say you have a list of a hundred multi-digit numbers that you want to add up. You can use a piece of paper, a pencil, and your brain, and it'll take a minute or three. Or you can use a computer spreadsheet and have it done much quicker. Errors in the pencil and paper calculation? Contra that off against manual entry errors into the spreadsheet. There's always human input (and therefore potentially inaccurate input) with any kind of computer work. The benefit is not reliability, but speed.
Honestly, people will trust Amazon.com to securely process their credit card transactions and their bank to send them monthly statements generated by a computer (not to mention online banking), but they won't trust a computer to add 1 to the appropriate column? That seems like absurd tinfoil-hattery to me. It's about transparency and trust. If I go to Amazon and buy a book for $50, I get an expected end result (the book) at an exactly described cost ($50). The cost is verifiable by checking my credit card statement.
The issue at hand is one of integrity. If Amazon agreed to sell the book for $50 but my credit card was charged $60, I would complain because I knew I was being stiffed.
What if I didn't see the credit card charge? What if a body of people processed my book-buying, and the charges were manually applied to my account, and there was a double check that all was correct? Would that be perfect? No, but if it was not possible to see my credit card charge for anonymity reasons (like in voting), then to me that's the best way. Far better than having a program announce that the numbers stacked up and there's nothing-to-see-here-move-along. When it comes to matters more important than $50 books (like how the country is run), then if I can't check myself, I want a trusted human (or appointed body) to do it for me. Don't we all deserve that when it comes to democracy?
If you really think that computer driven vote counting is simply adding a 1 to a column, then I don't think you grasp the complexity of the situation. What's to stop me voting twice? What happens if the file gets locked as other votes get written to it? How do you handle the adding of different "columns" from different districts? What if there's more than one John Smith running in the election? What if there's a power cut? How come the results aren't known one minute after the polling closes if computers are so good at this? Wow, I've not looked into this much, but if I can come up with a few wrinkles in this, how many could an expert come up with? Sure, there's probably a really good way of dong this by using computers, but the end solution will be so elaborate and expensive, it'll be easier, cheaper, and ironicly probably faster, to do it by hand. And for something that happens only every few years, we owe it to ourselves to show that we take this thing called democracy seriously.
Computers may be faster, but they are not more accurate when it comes to vote counting. And that's why all democratic elections should be hand-counted.
No, we're not God's army. However, neither are they and we are still the guy with the biggest stick on the playground. Although that may change someday, right now we have some leverage to dictate some terms as to how things are going to be run if our monetary resources are to be used by other countries for things like, say, Tsunami relief.
"I see that >100k have died and that you need help, but here's the tune you'll dance to if you want our assistance"
Shame on you.
Re:what about plotting waypoints on the map?
on
Mapping Google Maps
·
· Score: 1
I scrolled right for a long time but Europe never came into view.
From the US perspective, pretty much everything is to the left.
No, some things are evil, regardless of perspective.
Nope, it's the same as history being written by the winners, and therefore they determine what is "good" and what is "evil". It certainly is about perspective. You cannot measure evilness, it is not emperical. Someone's views on religion are no less wrong than anyone else's, unless you rule that religion A is right and good and all others are wrong and evil. This would not make a believer in religion B a believer in evil - because the concept is inherently subjective.
There are some absolutes in this world.
Agreed - but evilness isn't one of them. What SI scale is it measured on?
A company that really is only interested in the bottom line and advancing their plans, regardless of what else is happening and who they might hurt, is evil.
That would be all of them then. Any action taken by a company can be traced back to the desire for that company to succeed. Even giving to charity affects the bottom line with positive PR spins. A clever company will look at the big picture and crush only the minions that will not hurt their bottom lines by doing so.
Now, back OT, this guy was indeed a dumbass if he violated his NDA.
Slashdot Mirror
Shut up and eat your Freedom Fries.
Here's an experiment, if you don't believe me. Go out onto a street, accost an average-looking housewife, and try to tell her about Jesus. Now accost another one and try to tell her about string theory. Dollars to donuts you'll get the same reaction from both.
...
;-> ) is essentially a religious belief? Of course you can apply that thinking to ANY subject, including sport. Existentially you'd be right, but practically there's a line to be drawn between universally accepted "truths" and faith based beliefs. I draw that line between science and religion. YMMV, but your experiment doesn't help explain the difference.
:)
Not sure what you're getting at, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, BUT
You'd get the same reaction if you were to tell her that Owen moving to the Gunners next season may be a good thing on paper, but there's far from a unanimous warm welcome for him.
So does that mean football opinion (soccer for you colonials
Help me out here
I play a similar game.
... or Siberia?)
Imagine you are an alien who has just parked yourself in orbit around earth. Where would you land first, and why?
a) Look at a map, and select the best spot geographically. Why land there? (Australia, large island? Hawaii, small and remote island? Amazon, lots of greenery? Panama, "conduit" between land masses?)
b) Listen to radio/broadcast noise - select a noisy place, or a quiet place? (Europe, N.America
c) Look at artificial structures - which indicate the best place to land by? (New York, lots of skyscrapers - Great Wall of China, loooong structure - Pyramids, large and ancient?)
d) Search for mineral deposits - land in the Middle East for oil? What about gold, diamonds, or even large iron deposits?
Think like a peaceful alien, like a warfaring alien, like a diplomatic alien, like a resource prospecting alien.
Where would you land first and why?
This site posts photos found by Rich Vogel. It's a mundane, yet mildly voyeuristic peek into what other people do with digital cameras.
"The Found Photos started earlier this year while searching for mp3's using a filesharing program. I was searching through someones shared file list, and saw a folder named 'pictures'. I downloaded the folder and found 20 or so digital camera pictures of this persons life, taking pictures of himself, his friends etc. It made me wonder what else was out there, and after searching for more photos I found hundreds, thousands of them shared to everyone."
If it can automaticaly post dupes to slashdot, that'd be sweeeeet.
So if you want less browser spam, have fewer friends!
/.ers win again.
Man,
Well, you're right if you view American politics in a vacuum. When you look at American politics within a global perspective, the author of the GP was right.
:-)
I'm not sure the point about directors was particularly valid, though I think I get when he was trying to say.
I certainly get the feeling that there's a sizeable portion of the US that thinks "liberal" is a dirty word. In discussions elsewhere I've bumped into a lot of Americans who think so too. Granted, they're lefties, but that's exactly the point.
Perhaps the word everyone is searching for is "radical", rather than "liberal". And no skateboard references please
What a great idea! How about all the Slashdot submitters put $20 in a pot, and the last one who hasn't put in a dupe wins the pot?
<kramer>
I'm out!
</kramer>
"Adressen på den hjemmeside, du ønsker at finde, er enten forkert, eller også eksisterer hjemmesiden ikke længere. Du kan prøve følgende:
Tjekke om adressen er stavet rigtigt. Bemærk at det har betydning, om du bruger store eller små bogstaver!"
that may as well have been the writeup, because i don't understand a word of it.
The people in charge of firing the people in charge of the write up, have just been fired.
"to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling."
Wasn't that Yuri Gagarin?
He is back. And he rocks in Boston Legal.
... wonder if the source of the production money will have any change on the production values.
Though not as good as James Spader.
Back OT though
I had a nice long rebuttal worked out, and then thought I'd save my time for someone who can hold an intelligent discussion, rather than for someone who thinks ad hominen is part of thought provoking argument.
Is there someway that we can see the planned route ...
Yup, the BBC has a map of the planned route, here.
And when it doesn't appear to work, people complain that is was probably written by MS.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Humans are far more prone to error than any decently-coded program.
Any program more complex than "Hello, World!" is prone to errors because humans are the ones programming it. What's likely to produce more errors, counting the number of voting slips, or having a human-written program to do it for you? Your argument fails under it's own weight.
Why do you think we even have computers in the first place? Because they're more reliable and more efficient.
This is not the reason that computers are useful. Computers are useful because they are faster at doing things than humans are. Say you have a list of a hundred multi-digit numbers that you want to add up. You can use a piece of paper, a pencil, and your brain, and it'll take a minute or three. Or you can use a computer spreadsheet and have it done much quicker. Errors in the pencil and paper calculation? Contra that off against manual entry errors into the spreadsheet. There's always human input (and therefore potentially inaccurate input) with any kind of computer work. The benefit is not reliability, but speed.
Honestly, people will trust Amazon.com to securely process their credit card transactions and their bank to send them monthly statements generated by a computer (not to mention online banking), but they won't trust a computer to add 1 to the appropriate column? That seems like absurd tinfoil-hattery to me.
It's about transparency and trust. If I go to Amazon and buy a book for $50, I get an expected end result (the book) at an exactly described cost ($50). The cost is verifiable by checking my credit card statement.
The issue at hand is one of integrity. If Amazon agreed to sell the book for $50 but my credit card was charged $60, I would complain because I knew I was being stiffed.
What if I didn't see the credit card charge? What if a body of people processed my book-buying, and the charges were manually applied to my account, and there was a double check that all was correct? Would that be perfect? No, but if it was not possible to see my credit card charge for anonymity reasons (like in voting), then to me that's the best way. Far better than having a program announce that the numbers stacked up and there's nothing-to-see-here-move-along. When it comes to matters more important than $50 books (like how the country is run), then if I can't check myself, I want a trusted human (or appointed body) to do it for me. Don't we all deserve that when it comes to democracy?
If you really think that computer driven vote counting is simply adding a 1 to a column, then I don't think you grasp the complexity of the situation. What's to stop me voting twice? What happens if the file gets locked as other votes get written to it? How do you handle the adding of different "columns" from different districts? What if there's more than one John Smith running in the election? What if there's a power cut? How come the results aren't known one minute after the polling closes if computers are so good at this? Wow, I've not looked into this much, but if I can come up with a few wrinkles in this, how many could an expert come up with? Sure, there's probably a really good way of dong this by using computers, but the end solution will be so elaborate and expensive, it'll be easier, cheaper, and ironicly probably faster, to do it by hand. And for something that happens only every few years, we owe it to ourselves to show that we take this thing called democracy seriously.
Computers may be faster, but they are not more accurate when it comes to vote counting. And that's why all democratic elections should be hand-counted.
Do a quick google to learn more about the stabilizing effect of the moon on our planet.
... tilt of the earth's axis".
Do a quick google to learn more about the frequency of seasons. They tend to be roughly annual, not happen "over the course of say, ten years".
As the GP states, "Seasons happen because of the
If you buy a dictionary from Amazon, I'll gladly pay the sales tax for you.
Hey, guess what? You can drive for miles in the UK and not see a house, but that's not the point.
The point is, that saying that Sellafield is in London is like saying:
IN ABSOLUTE TERMS: that Three Mile Island is in Washington DC
IN RELATIVE TERMS: that Three Mile Island is in Los Angeles
Both absurd. The heading only goes to dilute the integrity of Slashdot stories.
So if the date is more important than the month, why put the month first?
(Think for a minute.)
Errr, 24?
No, we're not God's army. However, neither are they and we are still the guy with the biggest stick on the playground. Although that may change someday, right now we have some leverage to dictate some terms as to how things are going to be run if our monetary resources are to be used by other countries for things like, say, Tsunami relief.
"I see that >100k have died and that you need help, but here's the tune you'll dance to if you want our assistance"
Shame on you.
I scrolled right for a long time but Europe never came into view.
From the US perspective, pretty much everything is to the left.
"The American republic will endure until the politicians find they can bribe the people with their own money."
...
So what happened? When did the republic end? Cos the politicians are certainly bribing the proles thesedays
No, some things are evil, regardless of perspective.
Nope, it's the same as history being written by the winners, and therefore they determine what is "good" and what is "evil". It certainly is about perspective. You cannot measure evilness, it is not emperical. Someone's views on religion are no less wrong than anyone else's, unless you rule that religion A is right and good and all others are wrong and evil. This would not make a believer in religion B a believer in evil - because the concept is inherently subjective.
There are some absolutes in this world.
Agreed - but evilness isn't one of them. What SI scale is it measured on?
A company that really is only interested in the bottom line and advancing their plans, regardless of what else is happening and who they might hurt, is evil.
That would be all of them then. Any action taken by a company can be traced back to the desire for that company to succeed. Even giving to charity affects the bottom line with positive PR spins. A clever company will look at the big picture and crush only the minions that will not hurt their bottom lines by doing so.
Now, back OT, this guy was indeed a dumbass if he violated his NDA.
Hey, guess what? You have to register cars, too. And houses. And credit cards.
Now, if I want to phone someone shouldn't THAT be private? Shouldn't I have a right for the government to have "probable cause" before they listen in?