Assessing a problem (thinking about it) improves your chance of success
Even rational decisions have an emotional component
Everyone uses the "emotional" component to different degrees
Things such as temperature can affect what we think are rational decisions
We post-rationalise and lie to ourselves
. Things get a bit wacky at the end (and are a bit too nerdy at the beginning) but I wouldn't be surprised if one day the wacky stuff is accepted (once it can be explained).
Well, maybe the strength of the language may have put you off a bit, but if you think about it: even the most successful theories we have are limited in some way, and many of them were embraced as "universal" at some time or other (most famous example: Newtonian physics?).
It's resonable to assume that a theory that posits that everything we can percieve originated from a single point (ok, so it's a kind of "blob" now) has a high probability of going the same way as other "mono-" theories (and attitudes), I would think.
Someone who's cashing in their shares because they need the money will pay dividend taxes today.
Does anyone know what proportion of shares are owned by individuals, rather than pension funds? Ok, there's MicroSoft employees, for a start.
as soon as I start watching the movie instead of looking at it, I promptly forget
I was wondering about that - I mean, whether suspension of disbelief is more difficult in hi-res. I find it hard to accept CGI, and was wondering if the extra detail of hi-res would just provide lots of little details to remind me that I'm looking at a fake situation.
Do you think hi-res will force film-makers to increase their attention to detail?
For example, a room that uses a lot of heat/light could be a weed nursery. Warmer rooms in a house are more likely to be occupied (in cooler climates;-). Your devices can effectively contribute to your online profile, if you network them that way.
My first instinct would be to say no but I then realised that we should give ourselves some credit: experience can teach us how much fear to feel (and how to recognise and handle it as well).
I remember hearing a story of a fireman who pulled his team out of a burning house just in time to avoid a backdraft, based only on a "bad feeling" he had. Only afterwards did he realise the physical cues (from past experience) that had triggered that bad feeling.
I really like the "deaf" idea. We could also try it out on other species; as you suggested, "get em when they're young". We might learn interesting things.
As a battlefield tool, I can't imagine it being of any use to soldiers who haven't used it for years and don't need to think about it. What these military people need for it to work are orphans or clones. Even cheaper, just use robots. Of course, these strategies might be considered inhumane.
Well, we can rationally infer that an irrational fear is more likely to lead to an irrational choice. So if we could somehow calculate how much, on average, an individual needs unrestricted access to firearms, we might get an idea how rational the two sides of the argument are.
Of course, guns can be used for purely aggressive purposes: is there a rational argument for aggression?
So true. And to play this game, you don't follow the rules so much as use them.
It looks like Apple are trying to put pressure on an entity they see as threatening their money, using the rules of the patent system. It's not likely to succeed, but if it does, it's a cheap win. Next option is DMCA: not great PR, seeing as they're trying to loosen-up copyright for iTunes.
ghostdoc started out with a valid point but spoilt it by generalising:-(
IT departments have their fair share of staff who have lack knowledge of the company's business. Given that information is available in the form of documents and code, this lack of knowledge could be due to one or more of:
the need to specialise, i.e. dedicate a majority of their time and effort to some subsystem (and hence a subset of all business rules)
healthy lack of interest: not everybody has a natural tendency to remember how systems work and some of these people work in IT
unhealthy lack of interest: some people's efforts to disengage themselves from the workings of their employer's business, given that they are employees, could be described as a psycholigical disorder
That said, the probability of discovering that the person who knows the most about the company works is an employee of the IT department is very high.
IT staff are also more likely to know about the out-of-hours rules for company buildings;-)
You have the advantage of being a contractor: in fact, it's a good idea to report potential problems so as to avoid "he wasn't professional enough to spot the problem" finger-pointing.
The politics can be quite tricky when you are an employee.
Check this out, if you have time: Black Power (bonus: it's about aluminium and electricity)
"A look at how former Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah set Africa ablaze with his vision of a new industrial and scientific age. At the heart of his dream was to be the huge Volta dam, generating enough power to transform West Africa into an
advanced utopia. But as his grand experiment took shape, it brought with it dangerous forces Nkrumah couldn't control, and he slowly watched his metropolis of science sink into corruption and debt
It's evil for them to earn money and make a profit that helps the people with retirement plans invested in their industry?
Is it evil to hope to make enough money to educate your children and give them a chance in life?
it does seem like life tries pretty damn hard to perpetuate itself, doesn't it?
Here's how I'm looking at it at the moment: if life has a "goal", it's survival. Given that survival is difficult, if something has survived a long time, it must be good at surviving! Wanting to survive helps.
We know that evolution is a continuum, yet we have a strong sense of "species" (and other categorizations). This mindset is a product of the process that got us here: we need to identify in some way with others of our kind so that "we" may survive - but what is "we" then? "We" is the thing we're trying to perpetuate by surviving.
But we have already established that, as evolved beings, we cannot be perpetual (since we are evolving). So the thing we are trying to perpetuate by our survival cannot be us (humans)!
Of course, there's the outlook that our purpose is to pass on our genes but an interesting twist on that argument is that a very large proportion of successful gene-passing systems (organisms) are successful because they don't pass genes properly (mutation). What is being perpetuated, then? It's like Chinese Whispers! Don't forget that information travels in both directions in genetics: the ability of genes to respond to their environment has helped them to survive.
If we cannot say what is being perpetuated by life, we can at least say how it is being perpetuated: information processing!
I agree: we invented the term "evolution" to describe what we are observing (measuring) in nature - but that doesn't mean that the thing we are measuring is anything other than an accumulation of other processes.
To be fair, if scientists thought that evolution was "real", they'd be looking for an "evolution gene";-)
Maybe PNY imgine it might take the place of rentals, or something.
Maybe they hope the tech will be built-in to digital TVs in the future to get around "man-in-middle" recording.
I can't imagine that they ever considered that peeople would build a movie collection on USB sticks.
And now, 30 minutes later, something has removed the registry entry (I hadn't done it myelf yet).
Strange.
Maybe Google Update uses Google Update to uninstall itself? Program file has been deleted, too. They shoulda said something, tho.
Slashdot Mirror
. Things get a bit wacky at the end (and are a bit too nerdy at the beginning) but I wouldn't be surprised if one day the wacky stuff is accepted (once it can be explained).
Well, maybe the strength of the language may have put you off a bit, but if you think about it: even the most successful theories we have are limited in some way, and many of them were embraced as "universal" at some time or other (most famous example: Newtonian physics?).
It's resonable to assume that a theory that posits that everything we can percieve originated from a single point (ok, so it's a kind of "blob" now) has a high probability of going the same way as other "mono-" theories (and attitudes), I would think.
This is government and business at its absolute worst.
"For instance, a single X-ray laser module the size of an executive desk which applied this technology could potentially shoot down the entire Soviet land-based missile force, if it were to be launched into the module's field of view." - Edward Teller
Someone who's cashing in their shares because they need the money will pay dividend taxes today.
Does anyone know what proportion of shares are owned by individuals, rather than pension funds? Ok, there's MicroSoft employees, for a start.
as soon as I start watching the movie instead of looking at it, I promptly forget
I was wondering about that - I mean, whether suspension of disbelief is more difficult in hi-res. I find it hard to accept CGI, and was wondering if the extra detail of hi-res would just provide lots of little details to remind me that I'm looking at a fake situation.
Do you think hi-res will force film-makers to increase their attention to detail?
Maybe aromatic hydrocarbons + some thermodynamic cycle -> straight-chain hydrocarbons? I've forgotten most of my chemistry...
Could Windows Firewall work for my devices too? Or do I have to put a firewall on each one? Isn't that a hidden cost?
For example, a room that uses a lot of heat/light could be a weed nursery. Warmer rooms in a house are more likely to be occupied (in cooler climates ;-). Your devices can effectively contribute to your online profile, if you network them that way.
My first instinct would be to say no but I then realised that we should give ourselves some credit: experience can teach us how much fear to feel (and how to recognise and handle it as well).
I remember hearing a story of a fireman who pulled his team out of a burning house just in time to avoid a backdraft, based only on a "bad feeling" he had. Only afterwards did he realise the physical cues (from past experience) that had triggered that bad feeling.
I really like the "deaf" idea. We could also try it out on other species; as you suggested, "get em when they're young". We might learn interesting things.
As a battlefield tool, I can't imagine it being of any use to soldiers who haven't used it for years and don't need to think about it. What these military people need for it to work are orphans or clones. Even cheaper, just use robots. Of course, these strategies might be considered inhumane.
Done.
Well, we can rationally infer that an irrational fear is more likely to lead to an irrational choice. So if we could somehow calculate how much, on average, an individual needs unrestricted access to firearms, we might get an idea how rational the two sides of the argument are.
Of course, guns can be used for purely aggressive purposes: is there a rational argument for aggression?
Louis Savain was clear-minded enough to use the word "report" in his post - and the word "paranoid".
So true. And to play this game, you don't follow the rules so much as use them.
It looks like Apple are trying to put pressure on an entity they see as threatening their money, using the rules of the patent system. It's not likely to succeed, but if it does, it's a cheap win. Next option is DMCA: not great PR, seeing as they're trying to loosen-up copyright for iTunes.
IT departments have their fair share of staff who have lack knowledge of the company's business. Given that information is available in the form of documents and code, this lack of knowledge could be due to one or more of:
That said, the probability of discovering that the person who knows the most about the company works is an employee of the IT department is very high. ;-)
IT staff are also more likely to know about the out-of-hours rules for company buildings
You have the advantage of being a contractor: in fact, it's a good idea to report potential problems so as to avoid "he wasn't professional enough to spot the problem" finger-pointing.
The politics can be quite tricky when you are an employee.
It's evil for the company to make a profit?
Check this out, if you have time: Black Power (bonus: it's about aluminium and electricity)
"A look at how former Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah set Africa ablaze with his vision of a new industrial and scientific age. At the heart of his dream was to be the huge Volta dam, generating enough power to transform West Africa into an advanced utopia. But as his grand experiment took shape, it brought with it dangerous forces Nkrumah couldn't control, and he slowly watched his metropolis of science sink into corruption and debt
It's evil for them to earn money and make a profit that helps the people with retirement plans invested in their industry?
Is it evil to hope to make enough money to educate your children and give them a chance in life?
<sarcasm_right_back_atcha>f*cking Ghanaian hippies</sarcasm_right_back_atcha>
I guess it's not really an ad for an Windows, but rather an ad for Microsoft in general.
Some in the business world might infer that Microsoft are so "big", they don't need to advertise actual products.
Tapeworms can be found in both humans and people as well; though they are rarely found in humans.
Not the definitive source of information. Gratuitous photo of sphincter. If you didn't like worms before, you won't after.
The problem here is the difference between "pass on something" and "pass something on".
it does seem like life tries pretty damn hard to perpetuate itself, doesn't it?
Here's how I'm looking at it at the moment: if life has a "goal", it's survival. Given that survival is difficult, if something has survived a long time, it must be good at surviving! Wanting to survive helps.
We know that evolution is a continuum, yet we have a strong sense of "species" (and other categorizations). This mindset is a product of the process that got us here: we need to identify in some way with others of our kind so that "we" may survive - but what is "we" then? "We" is the thing we're trying to perpetuate by surviving.
But we have already established that, as evolved beings, we cannot be perpetual (since we are evolving). So the thing we are trying to perpetuate by our survival cannot be us (humans)!
Of course, there's the outlook that our purpose is to pass on our genes but an interesting twist on that argument is that a very large proportion of successful gene-passing systems (organisms) are successful because they don't pass genes properly (mutation). What is being perpetuated, then? It's like Chinese Whispers! Don't forget that information travels in both directions in genetics: the ability of genes to respond to their environment has helped them to survive.
If we cannot say what is being perpetuated by life, we can at least say how it is being perpetuated: information processing!
I agree: we invented the term "evolution" to describe what we are observing (measuring) in nature - but that doesn't mean that the thing we are measuring is anything other than an accumulation of other processes. ;-)
To be fair, if scientists thought that evolution was "real", they'd be looking for an "evolution gene"
Maybe PNY imgine it might take the place of rentals, or something.
Maybe they hope the tech will be built-in to digital TVs in the future to get around "man-in-middle" recording.
I can't imagine that they ever considered that peeople would build a movie collection on USB sticks.
I think it was the pronography industry.
And now, 30 minutes later, something has removed the registry entry (I hadn't done it myelf yet).
Strange.
Maybe Google Update uses Google Update to uninstall itself? Program file has been deleted, too. They shoulda said something, tho.