I do agree that the most likely explanation is that it was simply a young man playing a video game, like most of us who visit this site have done.
Agreed, which is why to correct initial response should have been to drag him in to see the headmaster to have a quiet, but firm word with him to get him to see how his actions might look to others. Charging him with dubious crimes publicises the behaviour and, particularly if the case is lost, encourages others to do the same.
I think you need to look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy again. I'm not trying to redefine scientist to exclude people who write such reports I'm pointing out a factual error that, these people themselves, claim to have professions which are not scientist. This is not a logical fallacy but a factual error.
Actually, your headline is about as accurate as the summary's in that calling them chickens is about as accurate as calling them scientists. The lead author, Paavo Järvensivu, is a independent researcher of economic culture which is not science, the next author is a PhD student in the Department of Political and Economic Studies at Helsinki (again not science), and the next two authors appear to be philosophers only the last author claims to be a scientist.
The intimidation aspect was showing a virtual representation of somebody carrying and using a firearm on school property. The "zombie" element in the video is irrelevant.
No, it is very relevant. Having a virtual representation of someone using a gun on school property to shoot fictional monsters in order to save people is very different to one where you are just shooting the people.
When every human on Earth is fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and entertained, THEN you can have this. Until such a time as that, capitalism in this form is absolutely immoral.
I was not passing judgement on capitalism, merely pointing out how it works. It is also not a "form" of capitalism but baked into its very nature. While I agree that, on the surface, this does appear immoral the result is the most efficient form of economy that delivers the most goods and services to people than any other system ever devised. I tend to look at capitalism the same way the Churchill did democracy: "it's the worst form of economy except for all the others that have ever been tried."
I don't know about this new bookmaking venture, but I've read that it's a thing in casinos in general that they can confiscate your winnings.
Legally? Any earlier poster already mentioned that somewhere in the US casinos were banned from preventing people from card counting. I'm sure they may do things like this since casinos are not exactly known for their good behaviour but whether they are legally allowed to do all of this seems rather more doubtful.
On top of that, there is also a restricted choice. It is no use finding out that TV show X is brilliant if it s not on at the time that you have free to watch something or it is not available on whatever streaming services you have access to.
Well, since he was charged with intimidation a logical place to start is "was anyone intimidated?". Since the game appears to involve walking while staring intently at your phone screen and occasionally tapping it then, if this is intimidating, a LOT of people are going to be guilty.
He filmed people without their consent and posted it online. That alone could break rules and laws, even seen as harassment if people objected and he did it anyway.
There are several problems with this theory. Firstly, in most countries, it is fine to film someone in a public place provided it is not for commercial gain. Secondly, he was not charged with this but with "intimidating behaviour" and lastly he is a kid and the law _should_ allow for a good deal of leeway when dealing with kids who do not always think through the consequences of their actions as much as an adult and may not be aware of some less-well-known laws.
The price doesn't go down because eBooks represent a production/distribution innovation by book publishers and distributors.
Not quite. The price does not go down (or ve goes up) because people are willing to pay more for the convenience of being instantly able to purchase any book they want. Prices for things are set by what the market will bear, not how much it cost to produce. Successful products are ones where the price is a lot higher than the cost to produce.
Competition is what normally prevents the gap between production costs and selling price remaining large but for ebooks each book has its own monopoly controlled by a large publisher so there is little to no competition...which is one of the many reasons why copyright needs a bit of a rethink/rebalance in our modern age.
So should they also be allowed to disqualify players for winning too much?
They cannot disqualify players for winning too much - if they have already taken the bet then they have to pay out. However, there is nothing wrong with them refusing to take new bets from them in the future provided that they are open and clear about their terms which must include a "if you win too much we will refuse all future bets" so that it makes it even clearer that gambling is never going to make you money.
As for rigging the odds, the odds are ALWAYS rigged in the casino's favour: this is how they make money! Provided that the odds are rigged in a way that everyone knows about i.e. results depend on a truly random odds of cards, dice etc. then it's fair. If you don't like the odds then you don't play the game...in the exactly same way that if the casino does not like the odds it too can refuse to play.
A book of statistical tables or logs used to take years to prepare.
True but this is just a matter of time: if you know what sine, logs etc are then you know enough to be able to calculate them by hand even if it will take years to make accurate tables. Now consider something like steel. Simply knowing that steel exists is not even close to enough information to be able to produce it. The same is true for the vast majority of materials around us. If we lose that information it will take many, many more years to recreate it.
Was this study done by the same researchers that did this one because it sounds about as accurate? For a start the alcohol numbers above include drink-driving deaths and this also applies to marijuana and the rate is increasing.
Like what? There is no alternative to chemical propulsion for a huge ship like this nor for the ascent and descent vehicles and those vehicles are generally designed with a specific planet in mind because it is very expensive to move large masses of fuel around that you do not need.
Shooting people across the solar system in a tin can is stupid.
Not as stupid as sending them to an unknown solar system in a tin can which will not be technologically equipped to deal with it after taking millennia to get there. The problem is that by "real spaceship" you really mean "fictional spaceship that all the cool sci-fi shows have".
Chalk on buffalos? Pure luxury. Back when I learnt maths buffalo hadn't evolved and sedimentary rock hadn't yet formed. We used to use write in the ash from an erupting volcano while dodging their lava flows and running Fortran code in our heads and, if we were lucky, the volcano would explode and kill us all before the calculation was done.
....but you tell that to kids nowadays and they just don't believe you!
No! My brother-in-law is a pilot and I was quite surprised that, after passing a rigorous test on the simulator for a new plane, he went immediately to flying passengers. His explanation was that the simulators they use are extremely realistic. The cockpit is a real one from a plane and it is mounted on hydraulic struts so it can tilt judder etc. realistically.
Teaching does not require an advanced degree. A BA/BS is sufficient.
True, but it does require a teaching certificate of some description beyond that degree which takes an additional 1-2 years to get depending on the system.
There is no general shortage of teachers.
There is in the UK for science where huge university tuition and loans are new. The UK has subject-specific teaching qualifications so if you are teaching science you need some sort of science education. The problem is that any science graduate now takes one look at the debt they have now have to pay off and suddenly the economic argument for a job in industry to pay off that debt overwhelms any desire to be a teacher. It's less of an issue in other subjects where industry jobs are hard to find and/or don't pay very well.
Why yes they are able to understand. In fact, such endowments exist now for the fields of study you outline.
Yes they do, but at nowhere near the levels required to actually operate all the teaching and research facilities that society needs to function. The problem with relying on giving is that only things which interest rich people get funded. In addition, some rich people will not fund anything at all which seems somewhat unfair.
This is why we have taxes to ensure that everyone pays something into the common kitty which is then used to fund things that society needs...or at least that is the theory, in practice that does not always happen but that is not a reason to tear down the whole system and return to medieval feudalism where us peasants are at the mercy of the lords who are supposed to look after us.
Hopefully, this will drive the point home to anybody else who might consider attempting to fly an aircraft with only simulator experience.
The experience depends heavily on the quality of the simulator. Airline pilots who have trained on a new aircraft will fly it for the first time with only simulator experience on it. Of course they train on commercial simulators which are quite a bit more realistic than what your home PC can manage and they have to pass rigorous tests on the simulator. Nevertheless, they initially fly with only simulator experience of the plane.
I doubt that pilotless passenger aircraft will become a reality for a long time yet. Having a highly trained human onboard whose survival depends on landing the plane safely is a great thing to have when dealing with the unusual situations associated with emergencies.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
True, this works well for medicine where people are very cognizant of the fact that at some point they are going to need good doctors. It is far less likely to work for fields like teaching or science where, although the entire population benefit, the benefit is not so direct.
That's good news for medical students who, as doctors, easily earn well over 6 figure salaries. However, it does nothing for good students wanting to become teachers who, while they generally have less debt, have far lower 5/maybe 6-figure salaries. The UK, which recently tripled student tuition to 9,000 pounds/year (~$15,000 Canadian) is suddenly finding that it is really hard to recruit science teachers. With a science degree and a large debt teaching becomes far less attractive compared to industry. Without good science teachers, you may miss out on getting good students into science-related disciplines like medicine before they even get to university.
They forgot I think to think about the trivial countermeasures
Not really because these have trivial solutions: just flag any bag which shows a huge amount of reflection or none at all as suspicious. Then, instead of a quick automated scan, you can be detained by security and wait while they rummage through your bag.
Slashdot Mirror
The BBC had 32K back in the 1980's so clearly Samsung and LG are a bit behind the times.
I do agree that the most likely explanation is that it was simply a young man playing a video game, like most of us who visit this site have done.
Agreed, which is why to correct initial response should have been to drag him in to see the headmaster to have a quiet, but firm word with him to get him to see how his actions might look to others. Charging him with dubious crimes publicises the behaviour and, particularly if the case is lost, encourages others to do the same.
Ahhhh the no true scientist fallacy
I think you need to look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy again. I'm not trying to redefine scientist to exclude people who write such reports I'm pointing out a factual error that, these people themselves, claim to have professions which are not scientist. This is not a logical fallacy but a factual error.
Actually, your headline is about as accurate as the summary's in that calling them chickens is about as accurate as calling them scientists. The lead author, Paavo Järvensivu, is a independent researcher of economic culture which is not science, the next author is a PhD student in the Department of Political and Economic Studies at Helsinki (again not science), and the next two authors appear to be philosophers only the last author claims to be a scientist.
Can he legally buy and drink alcohol? If not then the law in the US clearly believes that he is not fully responsible.
The intimidation aspect was showing a virtual representation of somebody carrying and using a firearm on school property. The "zombie" element in the video is irrelevant.
No, it is very relevant. Having a virtual representation of someone using a gun on school property to shoot fictional monsters in order to save people is very different to one where you are just shooting the people.
When every human on Earth is fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and entertained, THEN you can have this. Until such a time as that, capitalism in this form is absolutely immoral.
I was not passing judgement on capitalism, merely pointing out how it works. It is also not a "form" of capitalism but baked into its very nature. While I agree that, on the surface, this does appear immoral the result is the most efficient form of economy that delivers the most goods and services to people than any other system ever devised. I tend to look at capitalism the same way the Churchill did democracy: "it's the worst form of economy except for all the others that have ever been tried."
I don't know about this new bookmaking venture, but I've read that it's a thing in casinos in general that they can confiscate your winnings.
Legally? Any earlier poster already mentioned that somewhere in the US casinos were banned from preventing people from card counting. I'm sure they may do things like this since casinos are not exactly known for their good behaviour but whether they are legally allowed to do all of this seems rather more doubtful.
On top of that, there is also a restricted choice. It is no use finding out that TV show X is brilliant if it s not on at the time that you have free to watch something or it is not available on whatever streaming services you have access to.
I'm not sure how to objectively draw a boundary.
Well, since he was charged with intimidation a logical place to start is "was anyone intimidated?". Since the game appears to involve walking while staring intently at your phone screen and occasionally tapping it then, if this is intimidating, a LOT of people are going to be guilty.
He filmed people without their consent and posted it online. That alone could break rules and laws, even seen as harassment if people objected and he did it anyway.
There are several problems with this theory. Firstly, in most countries, it is fine to film someone in a public place provided it is not for commercial gain. Secondly, he was not charged with this but with "intimidating behaviour" and lastly he is a kid and the law _should_ allow for a good deal of leeway when dealing with kids who do not always think through the consequences of their actions as much as an adult and may not be aware of some less-well-known laws.
The price doesn't go down because eBooks represent a production/distribution innovation by book publishers and distributors.
Not quite. The price does not go down (or ve goes up) because people are willing to pay more for the convenience of being instantly able to purchase any book they want. Prices for things are set by what the market will bear, not how much it cost to produce. Successful products are ones where the price is a lot higher than the cost to produce.
Competition is what normally prevents the gap between production costs and selling price remaining large but for ebooks each book has its own monopoly controlled by a large publisher so there is little to no competition...which is one of the many reasons why copyright needs a bit of a rethink/rebalance in our modern age.
So should they also be allowed to disqualify players for winning too much?
They cannot disqualify players for winning too much - if they have already taken the bet then they have to pay out. However, there is nothing wrong with them refusing to take new bets from them in the future provided that they are open and clear about their terms which must include a "if you win too much we will refuse all future bets" so that it makes it even clearer that gambling is never going to make you money.
As for rigging the odds, the odds are ALWAYS rigged in the casino's favour: this is how they make money! Provided that the odds are rigged in a way that everyone knows about i.e. results depend on a truly random odds of cards, dice etc. then it's fair. If you don't like the odds then you don't play the game...in the exactly same way that if the casino does not like the odds it too can refuse to play.
A book of statistical tables or logs used to take years to prepare.
True but this is just a matter of time: if you know what sine, logs etc are then you know enough to be able to calculate them by hand even if it will take years to make accurate tables. Now consider something like steel. Simply knowing that steel exists is not even close to enough information to be able to produce it. The same is true for the vast majority of materials around us. If we lose that information it will take many, many more years to recreate it.
the number of Marijuana deaths is zero.
Was this study done by the same researchers that did this one because it sounds about as accurate? For a start the alcohol numbers above include drink-driving deaths and this also applies to marijuana and the rate is increasing.
Non-chemical propulsion
Like what? There is no alternative to chemical propulsion for a huge ship like this nor for the ascent and descent vehicles and those vehicles are generally designed with a specific planet in mind because it is very expensive to move large masses of fuel around that you do not need.
Shooting people across the solar system in a tin can is stupid.
Not as stupid as sending them to an unknown solar system in a tin can which will not be technologically equipped to deal with it after taking millennia to get there. The problem is that by "real spaceship" you really mean "fictional spaceship that all the cool sci-fi shows have".
...but if they want to rebuild to a technological civilization these tables will be amongst the most valuable artefacts on the planet.
Hardly. It might take a bit of boring effort but it is not hard to calculate all the values in these tables from scratch by hand.
Chalk on buffalos? Pure luxury. Back when I learnt maths buffalo hadn't evolved and sedimentary rock hadn't yet formed. We used to use write in the ash from an erupting volcano while dodging their lava flows and running Fortran code in our heads and, if we were lucky, the volcano would explode and kill us all before the calculation was done.
....but you tell that to kids nowadays and they just don't believe you!
No! My brother-in-law is a pilot and I was quite surprised that, after passing a rigorous test on the simulator for a new plane, he went immediately to flying passengers. His explanation was that the simulators they use are extremely realistic. The cockpit is a real one from a plane and it is mounted on hydraulic struts so it can tilt judder etc. realistically.
Teaching does not require an advanced degree. A BA/BS is sufficient.
True, but it does require a teaching certificate of some description beyond that degree which takes an additional 1-2 years to get depending on the system.
There is no general shortage of teachers.
There is in the UK for science where huge university tuition and loans are new. The UK has subject-specific teaching qualifications so if you are teaching science you need some sort of science education. The problem is that any science graduate now takes one look at the debt they have now have to pay off and suddenly the economic argument for a job in industry to pay off that debt overwhelms any desire to be a teacher. It's less of an issue in other subjects where industry jobs are hard to find and/or don't pay very well.
Why yes they are able to understand. In fact, such endowments exist now for the fields of study you outline.
Yes they do, but at nowhere near the levels required to actually operate all the teaching and research facilities that society needs to function. The problem with relying on giving is that only things which interest rich people get funded. In addition, some rich people will not fund anything at all which seems somewhat unfair.
This is why we have taxes to ensure that everyone pays something into the common kitty which is then used to fund things that society needs...or at least that is the theory, in practice that does not always happen but that is not a reason to tear down the whole system and return to medieval feudalism where us peasants are at the mercy of the lords who are supposed to look after us.
Hopefully, this will drive the point home to anybody else who might consider attempting to fly an aircraft with only simulator experience.
The experience depends heavily on the quality of the simulator. Airline pilots who have trained on a new aircraft will fly it for the first time with only simulator experience on it. Of course they train on commercial simulators which are quite a bit more realistic than what your home PC can manage and they have to pass rigorous tests on the simulator. Nevertheless, they initially fly with only simulator experience of the plane.
I doubt that pilotless passenger aircraft will become a reality for a long time yet. Having a highly trained human onboard whose survival depends on landing the plane safely is a great thing to have when dealing with the unusual situations associated with emergencies.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
True, this works well for medicine where people are very cognizant of the fact that at some point they are going to need good doctors. It is far less likely to work for fields like teaching or science where, although the entire population benefit, the benefit is not so direct.
That's good news for medical students who, as doctors, easily earn well over 6 figure salaries. However, it does nothing for good students wanting to become teachers who, while they generally have less debt, have far lower 5/maybe 6-figure salaries. The UK, which recently tripled student tuition to 9,000 pounds/year (~$15,000 Canadian) is suddenly finding that it is really hard to recruit science teachers. With a science degree and a large debt teaching becomes far less attractive compared to industry. Without good science teachers, you may miss out on getting good students into science-related disciplines like medicine before they even get to university.
They forgot I think to think about the trivial countermeasures
Not really because these have trivial solutions: just flag any bag which shows a huge amount of reflection or none at all as suspicious. Then, instead of a quick automated scan, you can be detained by security and wait while they rummage through your bag.