Nice phrasing, but no.
Tests are themselves discarded when they fail to provide any evidence, either for or against. Then better tests are devised.
Hypotheses themselves are discarded when the testing is capable of providing evidence against the hypotheses.
Let me know when that happens with religious belief.
Everyone has some beliefs without scientific evidence. No one, no matter how skeptical, can take the time to prove EVERYTHING they believe, before they believe it. Now, religion is in an odd category, in that its not irrational, so much as it's arational (if that can be a word). The fact that it cannot be disproved in general principle may not be to its credit, but it's not actually a point against it either. For religious people, religion provides a community tradition, and potential answers to questions that science is not prepared to answer. It is also experiential. Somewhere, a poor person in dire straits has prayed and prayed for financial aid and just won a 10,000 dollar jackpot. Statistically seeking, it had to happen to someone, but is it really wrong for his family and friends to see this as evidence for the power of prayer?
The problem comes not from believing without proof. The problem is when one takes that and extends it into the realm of science. It's when one uses religion to replace science, instead of holding it alongside of science. A person who says dinosaurs never existed because the earth isn't that old is replacing science with religion, and yes, this definitely hinders scientific progress. A person who says that the bible is clearly wrong because the earth is older than it states is replacing science with religion and hindering their religious experience. Obviously we'd rather have person B in charge than person A, but these aren't the only two options. The third option is for a person to recognize that a timeless infinite God can spend only 6 days creating a much older earth because screw time anyway. This is a person that doesn't limit science with religion or religion with science. He has the potential of both a good scientist and a good priest, and as such, should he really be mocked for his faith?
Rhetorical question. This is Slashdot, so I already know the answer:P
While I agree that the sample size is small, there is certainly reason to think that if the political discourse continues as it is now, in eight years we could be in for that talk to start manifesting itself physically.
You have to be very careful with this kind of reasoning. It is close to saying, "Even though he doesn't have to evidence to back his claim, it fits my world view so I will use it to reinforce my current beliefs." This is the same kind of thinking that spreads conspiracy theories and group think, and it is an extraordinarily easy trap to fall into.
Government watchdog is one thing. Watchdog government is entirely different. I'm not sure how he can continue what he's doing while holding actual power.
When I first read this I thought it was dreadful, but what if it was used smartly. What if the cable companies introduced a lower tier of service, where it costs less for the base subscription, and you're charged for every commercial you skip, up to a price a little higher than the next tier service? They could grab a larger percentage of people who think that cable isn't worth it at current prices, while showing investors and advertisers a model with less risk. The micro transactions could give the consumer a feeling of value and choice over when to skip commercials.
I really have to disagree. These laws were made with bad intentions. Hear me out for a moment.
Murder is wrong. Murder is against the law. Murder still happens. Even assuming the intention was good in broad strokes, which I will dispute in a moment, the idea that we will continue piling laws up against murder until it goes away entirely is inherently abusive toward our liberties and impossible to actually enforce. Murder is illegal and penalized with incarceration or death depending on where you live. Nobody likes murder, but we arent clammoring to make it *more* illegal.
Likewise, copyright infringement is already illegal under the relevent codes. Making it *more* illegal simply blurs public perception about what crime is being committed. If the law simply made it more illegal, it's already in the wrong, but it does worse than that.
Imagine if, in order to stop murder, we created a law that said anyone who suspects someone of murdering their family member may hold them prisoner, possibly indefinately, with the burden of proof on the accused to show that he is not guilty. We would be legalizing vigilante enforcement at the hands of the most biased party, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
This is what SOPA does, and it is incidious. It is not establishing the rule of law. It is using the cloak of law to legitimize lawless percecution. And I don't think for one moment that it's accidental.
If an operating system marketed at users gives users a better interface, how exactly is this a bad thing?
You are not their demographic, the "luser" is. As a developer, I would hope that you would understand the need to cater to the users, instead of maligning them for not being as knowledgeable as yourself.
As an aside, the issues that I recall everyone complaining about back in the day were blue screening and degradation over time. I can't speak to your experience but I haven't need a reformat since getting Windows 7, and blue screens and black screens are a thing of the past. The BETA was more stable than previous iterations, the only problem being its lack of driver support.
I guess the fact that I notice and appreciate these things makes me a Luser. Uh... down with MS. Here's a hilarious picture of Nazi Bill.
Apparently everyone in the US has the right to vote except cowards? The expectation of privacy in a petition is not much different from the expectation of privacy at the voting booth. This is not about gay rights. This about creating an environment where the voters can feel as safe as possible so that the bills passed can express the true desires of the public. I can think of many possibilities for future abuses of this ruling. I also find it frightening that all the arguments against privacy in the petition I've seen in these comments can be used to abolish privacy in the voting booth as well. Or anonymous usage of the internet for that matter. You're all saying we shouldn't ever do anything we don't want to have made public. I thought I was reading Slashdot?
Mc Donalds makes child portioned meals more attractive to children by providing them with toys. How is making the kid actually want 4 nuggets, an apple dipper and some juice instead of a bigmac going to make him fatter?
Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production.
Anytime someone says "Everything the government [does is bad]" you know they're whargarbling ideology and are not dealing with reality.
That aside, most markets are already distorted for a variety of governmental and non-govermental reasons, long before government subsidies get involved.
TLDR much?
"This is not to be confused with long lead time gov. led efforts, such as basic research, environmental studies and the like, in which a "market" either would not exist or would be dysfunctional due to lack or participants. Government clearly has important roles. Providing student loans is not one of them."
Yep. Also, we need to disband all corporations and create government sanctioned monopolies on all production. That way, we don't waste resorces on needless redundancy, cheap generic knockoffs, and consumer choice.
Actually, competition brings greatness to the front in all fields. Without competition in sports, we'd still think running the mile in under 4 minutes was impossible. Without competition in industry, we'd lose out on innovation, content to work at the humdrum pace of sloth and mediocrity.
Competition, the fear of someone else getting their first and reaping the benefits of the victor, is quite possibly the greatest motivation we have to do better. Remeber in school when everyone got a trophy? Noone cared.
No matter what Blizzard does here, they're screwed. The ban on Gay guilds wasn't intended, I dont think, as a biggoted decision. Rather, it was to keep guilds open. Because they made that call, they were getting busted on, so they reversed the decision. This isn't 'caving into pressure'. It's simply changing policies to conform with what the current social situation seems to require of them. So, yes, it could be seen as caving. But it's also part of the process a company has to go through to create a product that is acceptable to the most of their fanbase.
If they ban the guilds, they're seen as biggots. If they reverse that decision, they're seen as caving and condoning devisive behavior.
Personally though, I'm glad they 'caved' as it were. Other devisive behavior is allowed and really, the whole point of an MMO over an offline game is devisiveness - forming communities with whatever traits, from the superficial to the profound life choices, that you wish to spend the time with. Unlike in the real world where excluding groups prevents others access to equal opportunities, in WOW it allows everyone to tailor the game to their particular requirements. So, go Blizzard for choosing, what I believe to be, the best option in a difficult situation.
And revisiting a choice isnt always caving to pressure. Sometimes its learning from experience.
And this my friends, is what we call circular reasoning. We begin with the premise that he's right, and everyone who disagree's is wrong. We then postulate, 'but I disagree'. The answer to that, as outlined in the premise, is that you are now wrong by default.
Instant +5 insightful.
"Mr. Nolan, it's for you! It's God. He says we should have girls at Whelton."
A private school is stuffy? Really? This is completely new news.
I apologize for teh sarcasm (albiet, not sincerely) but how is this a free speach issue? No laws were violated. The goverment isn't keepin' us down. A private institution saw a student commiting what was determined to be a breach of contract and called him on it.
Was that stupid? I think so. Is this a new crisis for the internet and free speech? Hardly.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice phrasing, but no.
Tests are themselves discarded when they fail to provide any evidence, either for or against. Then better tests are devised. Hypotheses themselves are discarded when the testing is capable of providing evidence against the hypotheses.
Let me know when that happens with religious belief.
Everyone has some beliefs without scientific evidence. No one, no matter how skeptical, can take the time to prove EVERYTHING they believe, before they believe it. Now, religion is in an odd category, in that its not irrational, so much as it's arational (if that can be a word). The fact that it cannot be disproved in general principle may not be to its credit, but it's not actually a point against it either. For religious people, religion provides a community tradition, and potential answers to questions that science is not prepared to answer. It is also experiential. Somewhere, a poor person in dire straits has prayed and prayed for financial aid and just won a 10,000 dollar jackpot. Statistically seeking, it had to happen to someone, but is it really wrong for his family and friends to see this as evidence for the power of prayer?
:P
The problem comes not from believing without proof. The problem is when one takes that and extends it into the realm of science. It's when one uses religion to replace science, instead of holding it alongside of science. A person who says dinosaurs never existed because the earth isn't that old is replacing science with religion, and yes, this definitely hinders scientific progress. A person who says that the bible is clearly wrong because the earth is older than it states is replacing science with religion and hindering their religious experience. Obviously we'd rather have person B in charge than person A, but these aren't the only two options. The third option is for a person to recognize that a timeless infinite God can spend only 6 days creating a much older earth because screw time anyway. This is a person that doesn't limit science with religion or religion with science. He has the potential of both a good scientist and a good priest, and as such, should he really be mocked for his faith?
Rhetorical question. This is Slashdot, so I already know the answer
While I agree that the sample size is small, there is certainly reason to think that if the political discourse continues as it is now, in eight years we could be in for that talk to start manifesting itself physically.
You have to be very careful with this kind of reasoning. It is close to saying, "Even though he doesn't have to evidence to back his claim, it fits my world view so I will use it to reinforce my current beliefs." This is the same kind of thinking that spreads conspiracy theories and group think, and it is an extraordinarily easy trap to fall into.
The controller has its own web browser
Government watchdog is one thing. Watchdog government is entirely different. I'm not sure how he can continue what he's doing while holding actual power.
When I first read this I thought it was dreadful, but what if it was used smartly. What if the cable companies introduced a lower tier of service, where it costs less for the base subscription, and you're charged for every commercial you skip, up to a price a little higher than the next tier service? They could grab a larger percentage of people who think that cable isn't worth it at current prices, while showing investors and advertisers a model with less risk. The micro transactions could give the consumer a feeling of value and choice over when to skip commercials.
There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning...
It's like he was warning us from the first book..
Just because you disagree with the parent, doesn't make his post any way off topic.
I really have to disagree. These laws were made with bad intentions. Hear me out for a moment.
Murder is wrong. Murder is against the law. Murder still happens. Even assuming the intention was good in broad strokes, which I will dispute in a moment, the idea that we will continue piling laws up against murder until it goes away entirely is inherently abusive toward our liberties and impossible to actually enforce. Murder is illegal and penalized with incarceration or death depending on where you live. Nobody likes murder, but we arent clammoring to make it *more* illegal.
Likewise, copyright infringement is already illegal under the relevent codes. Making it *more* illegal simply blurs public perception about what crime is being committed. If the law simply made it more illegal, it's already in the wrong, but it does worse than that.
Imagine if, in order to stop murder, we created a law that said anyone who suspects someone of murdering their family member may hold them prisoner, possibly indefinately, with the burden of proof on the accused to show that he is not guilty. We would be legalizing vigilante enforcement at the hands of the most biased party, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
This is what SOPA does, and it is incidious. It is not establishing the rule of law. It is using the cloak of law to legitimize lawless percecution. And I don't think for one moment that it's accidental.
If an operating system marketed at users gives users a better interface, how exactly is this a bad thing?
You are not their demographic, the "luser" is. As a developer, I would hope that you would understand the need to cater to the users, instead of maligning them for not being as knowledgeable as yourself.
As an aside, the issues that I recall everyone complaining about back in the day were blue screening and degradation over time. I can't speak to your experience but I haven't need a reformat since getting Windows 7, and blue screens and black screens are a thing of the past. The BETA was more stable than previous iterations, the only problem being its lack of driver support.
I guess the fact that I notice and appreciate these things makes me a Luser. Uh... down with MS. Here's a hilarious picture of Nazi Bill.
I WANT TO NAME MY FOLDER 'CON'
I'd trade vision to see Mars
I'm not sure you understand how this works..
We don't give teenage girls nukes!
Try asking on a Windows forum about something you can do trivially in Linux sometime.
Like what exactly?
Ok, I must admit you DO have a point there.
Apparently everyone in the US has the right to vote except cowards? The expectation of privacy in a petition is not much different from the expectation of privacy at the voting booth. This is not about gay rights. This about creating an environment where the voters can feel as safe as possible so that the bills passed can express the true desires of the public. I can think of many possibilities for future abuses of this ruling. I also find it frightening that all the arguments against privacy in the petition I've seen in these comments can be used to abolish privacy in the voting booth as well. Or anonymous usage of the internet for that matter. You're all saying we shouldn't ever do anything we don't want to have made public. I thought I was reading Slashdot?
Mc Donalds makes child portioned meals more attractive to children by providing them with toys. How is making the kid actually want 4 nuggets, an apple dipper and some juice instead of a bigmac going to make him fatter?
Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production.
Anytime someone says "Everything the government [does is bad]" you know they're whargarbling ideology and are not dealing with reality.
That aside, most markets are already distorted for a variety of governmental and non-govermental reasons, long before government subsidies get involved.
TLDR much? "This is not to be confused with long lead time gov. led efforts, such as basic research, environmental studies and the like, in which a "market" either would not exist or would be dysfunctional due to lack or participants. Government clearly has important roles. Providing student loans is not one of them."
...when all it can detect is itself?
Whats the point of designing a hard disk or SSD that works faster if SATA is stuck at 3Gb/s?
How many people bought Duck Tales for NES? TMNT? Batman?
I rest my case.
Yep. Also, we need to disband all corporations and create government sanctioned monopolies on all production. That way, we don't waste resorces on needless redundancy, cheap generic knockoffs, and consumer choice.
Actually, competition brings greatness to the front in all fields. Without competition in sports, we'd still think running the mile in under 4 minutes was impossible. Without competition in industry, we'd lose out on innovation, content to work at the humdrum pace of sloth and mediocrity.
Competition, the fear of someone else getting their first and reaping the benefits of the victor, is quite possibly the greatest motivation we have to do better. Remeber in school when everyone got a trophy? Noone cared.
No matter what Blizzard does here, they're screwed. The ban on Gay guilds wasn't intended, I dont think, as a biggoted decision. Rather, it was to keep guilds open. Because they made that call, they were getting busted on, so they reversed the decision. This isn't 'caving into pressure'. It's simply changing policies to conform with what the current social situation seems to require of them. So, yes, it could be seen as caving. But it's also part of the process a company has to go through to create a product that is acceptable to the most of their fanbase. If they ban the guilds, they're seen as biggots. If they reverse that decision, they're seen as caving and condoning devisive behavior. Personally though, I'm glad they 'caved' as it were. Other devisive behavior is allowed and really, the whole point of an MMO over an offline game is devisiveness - forming communities with whatever traits, from the superficial to the profound life choices, that you wish to spend the time with. Unlike in the real world where excluding groups prevents others access to equal opportunities, in WOW it allows everyone to tailor the game to their particular requirements. So, go Blizzard for choosing, what I believe to be, the best option in a difficult situation. And revisiting a choice isnt always caving to pressure. Sometimes its learning from experience.
In the Asmov Gold book, he actually talks about how the idea for the novel sprung from this theory. That's actually how the novel got its name, heh.
And this my friends, is what we call circular reasoning. We begin with the premise that he's right, and everyone who disagree's is wrong. We then postulate, 'but I disagree'. The answer to that, as outlined in the premise, is that you are now wrong by default. Instant +5 insightful.
"Mr. Nolan, it's for you! It's God. He says we should have girls at Whelton." A private school is stuffy? Really? This is completely new news. I apologize for teh sarcasm (albiet, not sincerely) but how is this a free speach issue? No laws were violated. The goverment isn't keepin' us down. A private institution saw a student commiting what was determined to be a breach of contract and called him on it. Was that stupid? I think so. Is this a new crisis for the internet and free speech? Hardly.