That's about it. I have been in that state, and I would have accepted a.45 slug through my head at that point.That's how much it hurt.
As an aside, so what? Do you still feel "grade 10" pain? There's no reason for me to feel grade 10 pain in the long term. I can always take morphine or that bullet in the head. And bullets are cheaper and less painful than doing stuff I know won't help me.
But I do give up when people refuse to take telling. You've reached that point.
Perhaps, next time you'll learn not to start with such nonsense. I did this Internet Tough Guy troll for a reason. Not to waste your time, but to demonstrate the ultimate futility of your argument.
Argument from ignorance is more of the more pernicious and obnoxious fallacies we commit on Slashdot. "I'm right because if you had experienced some irrelevant but ridiculous situation (be it experiencing "grade 10" pain or walking in my shoes), then you'd agree with me." The truth is, you probably wouldn't. Individual experiences are overrated.
And of course, there's my obvious rebuttal. Since you have never experienced my existence, then you have nothing to say about what I can or can't do by your own logic.
My argument is that if you are ever in grade 10 intense excruciating pain, you are no longer the cool calm collected and always rational person you might believe yourself to be.After the initial shock wears off, nature has a surprise waiting for ya.
That's about it. I have been in that state, and I would have accepted a.45 slug through my head at that point.That's how much it hurt.
And my point is that you don't get to argue from ignorance only when it suits you.
Wow. Just Wow. You not only know for certain your future, but you absolutely know what does and does not work.
I know everybody's future. We will die. And a good portion of us will try to stay alive with low probability treatments. Maybe I'll be among that number. But to try something that I know won't help me live even a little longer, painfully? Who are you kidding?
And all extrapolations are accurate. Takes a lot of chutzpah to tell someone their argument is retarded, then come up with that priceless bit of hubris.
A good way to lose your smug arrogance your cocksure knowledge of how you will react in a superior fashion to situations of maximum stress, is maybe trail along with an ambulance or camp out in a emergency ward.
No, it wouldn't. Because emergency room shit is a different sort of maximum stress experience than dying slowly of cancer. Hence, it would not be applicable at all. That's your argument, remember?
Aw, shit, who the hell am I kidding? Carry on.
You could have saved a lot of time using this approach in the first place.
Here's a crazy idea: let's have everyone vote, and then see what the results are before we report on it?
Jeb Bush by a landslide. When you no longer poll (or the polls get sufficiently discredited), it becomes very easy to steer elections to the right candidates. The voters may be tired of more Bushes, but the voting machines are Diebold Republicans.
YOU are the one claiming the science behind the ban on CFCs is weak. YOU are the one claiming we don't know what we prevented by the ban. YOU are the one talking about "hidden consequences" (whatever the fuck that is). YOU are the one claiming CFC replacements are less efficient for refrigeration than CFCs.
Ok, let's talk about that then. The first observation is that humanity has only studied the ozone hole for a few decades. As a result, we aren't even sure it's unusual in extent or duration or if it would get worse in the presence of CFCs (maybe we have underestimated the production and non-anthropogenic destruction of ozone, for example).
As to hidden consequences, they come in two sorts. First, there's the opportunity costs. We will never see how much worse off we are because we chose to impair our economy by banning CFCs. Second, we don't know how much refrigeration and air conditioning use has been curbed due to the higher costs of such equipment. But we do know that people routinely die in heat waves from choosing not to run air conditioning.
Similarly, we know that food stored in the "danger zone", temperatures between 40 F and 140 F (in the US version) spoils faster and increases the risk of harmful foodborne illness. These things harm and kill people all the time, but they are invisible to the public.
So anything that discourages refrigeration and A/C use can be expected to increase the harm caused by things like heat waves or food poisoning. We'll see the heat stroke victim, but we won't see the victim's decision not to use a more expensive air conditioner.
YOU are the one claiming CFC replacements are less efficient for refrigeration than CFCs.
This is common knowledge. CFC replacements are often more chemically reactive (the reactivity greatly reduces the half-life of the chemical in atmosphere, such as HCFCs) and sometimes more hazardous to human health. Having said that, I do see that a formerly common refrigerant CFC, R-12 was significantly less efficient than it's replacements (such as R-134a).
Cost is a big factor. As another replier noted, CFCs (and now the first generation replacements for CFCs) were open to production by generics. Replacements were often protected by patent (particularly, Du Pont who has invested a lot in CFC-replacements) and would be more expensive from that aspect alone. It was the considerable financial benefit to Du Pont that got me thinking about the issue and whether we understand this issue as well as we think we do.
Conflicts of interest do not magically render science irrelevant, but they can introduce considerable biases.
You really have no idea how you'll respond, nor do most people, unless they have been there...
And you base this on whose experience? Not mine, obviously. This argument is bankrupt. You haven't experienced my life, so you can't by the nature of your argument make any statements of certainty about me.
How about we don't waste our time blathering of the imperfection of reality and instead find actual evidence to support your various opinions on the matter?
And if you are in pain, you might give $100 to someone to pray for you. I mean, at that point, what do you have to lose? $100?
Which is why I wouldn't do that. I would lose $100 and not gain anything by it. The alleged benefit would have to be plausible to me. I'm just not large enough a market to scam.
Change that, and give developers more freedom to build what people actually want
What makes you think that's a problem? The thing here is that people want sprawl more than they want the alternatives. We've had a while to demonstrate better approaches to living and it's just not going to work without substantial changes which currently appear prohibitively expensive.
The coerced solutions only get noticed when they go wrong.
Wrong enough to get noticed.
banning the use of CFCs as propellants and refrigerants
While I agree that sometimes we need mandatory regulation (and for the most part, your list is a fair example of reasonable mandatory regulation), the CFC issue is much like the AGW issue in that it was a decision made on incomplete data, unproven models, and with hidden consequences. One doesn't usually see the effects of more expensive and less efficient refrigeration or air conditioning. And one doesn't really know what we prevented by this action.
It's main point is that AGW, true or not, is evil and must be stopped,
When truth and reality don't matter, then right and wrong can be anything you want. It's just arbitrary bits to set.
why should we care about climate change if the Earth if it's just a ball of dirt and we can just fly a rocket to another one?
That's simple economics. Because you destroy a valuable asset and impose an unnecessary cost on yourself. You might as well ask why not burn your house down, if you can just move to another house afterward at great cost? Even asking the question demonstrates that one hasn't thought about the consequences any more than the people they supposedly are criticizing.
What fact? I've been in math a while and I have yet to run into anyone who does that in practice. And 0/0 = 1 is a stronger restriction than 0^0 = 1 (because the latter expression has better asymptotic stability, such as considering (ax)^(bx) versus (ax)/(bx)).
On those days of always connected and virtualisation technologies, skips and email in our pocket, why do we have to live in dreadful places?
The problem here is that high concentrations of people are always, invariably dreadful. There's various negative factors that come into play with high population densities (eg, crime, transportation logistics, destruction of green space) that we haven't yet figured out.
Silicon Valley was a nice place before the people. But move several million people into a small place and the original advantages get swamped. It's just the way it is, currently.
Americans have the US Constitution and it is a mighty document. The Constitution has always been a vital part of protecting the freedoms of ordinary Americans from overreach by government. Yet the Constitution is flawed in one terribly dramatic way. By allowing and even encouraging a heavily armed society, it fails to strike any blows for freedom - as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour. The chances of ordinary US citizens successfully mounting an armed uprising against the government is zero. And yet it simultaneously gives those same police a cast iron excuse for arming themselves to the teeth, as they are expected to enforce the law against an exceptionally dangerous population.
So what is this "flaw" of which you speak? I think the flaw is even more basic. A constitution, no matter how well worded, can't prevent people from ignoring it. And it's worth noting that this basic flaw is demonstrated in both the US and the UK in different ways.
You think that proffering a pretext for the timing of the Dem's decision to end the OWS protests lends weight to the notion that the party had the power to end the protests in the first place?
No, that they had the power via powerful proxies to organize and direct the protests in the first place.
See your words up there? See how you claim that the Democrat party is directly/indirectly responsible for the OWS protests being as large as they were? See how you insinuate that the Dems (directly or indirectly) let loose local police at dozens of cities worldwide to end the protests when they no longer served the interests of the party?
Responsibility doesn't indicate direct control. And the reason I make that "insinuation" is because that's pretty much what happened.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You provide NO EVIDENCE in support of your claims, which are beyond extraordinary - they are the stuff of lunacy.
I already pointed out several bits of evidence elsewhere in this discussion. First, that the protests were allowed to continue in New York City (and other US cities) until the day before polls indicated that the US public was mostly against the protests. Second, there was high level support for the protests in the early weeks of the protests by politicians from the Democrat party.
Third, one of these politicians happens to be President Obama who by himself has the capability to organize and disperse the OWS (in other words, one doesn't need to ask why the Democrat Party doesn't control something directly when a powerful member of that party happens to be able to do so). And in the beginning, frankly, I think there was a lot of cat eats the cream attitude coming from Democrat politicians - like how many Republican politicians thought the "Sequester" (a strategy of applying pressure via triggering forced budget cuts) was going to work out for themselves.
I also have other sorts of evidence. Many of the constituents of the protests, particularly the NGOs that originally organized the protests and the labor unions who helped contribute protestors and coordinate the logistics are strong and well connected Democrat supporters. If you wanted to protest in OWS, for a time there was logistics and funding for protesting in a way that publicly served the Democrat party agenda (for example, demonstrating an aligned counterweight to the Tea Party protests). And then just as suddenly, that logistics and funding went away when the protests were shown to be counterproductive for the Democrats by polling organizations.
Did it occur to you that the girl might not understand the mathematical issue of divide by zero? Seems like you told her everything she OBVIOUSLY already knew and intentionally omitted the part that might have actually clued her in. And why? Because "she should already know that because of prerequisite course X"? Doesn't matter what she "should" know if she doesn't, and you did nothing but perpetuate her ignorance and encourage her to learn more about how to succeed in ignorance. Seems to me you could have taken a minute or two and help her learn/relearn, and maybe get a tiny shred of that "maybe I'm not stupid" feeling, but instead you chose to take your frustration and bitterness out on her in the type of cold manipulative way that you knew an instructor could get away with. I think you "should already know" how to treat human beings, and regard it as a prerequisite for being a teacher.
Except this guy apparently was not an instructor. Part of the college experience is learning who not to approach for advice and instruction.
Slashdot Mirror
That's about it. I have been in that state, and I would have accepted a .45 slug through my head at that point.That's how much it hurt.
As an aside, so what? Do you still feel "grade 10" pain? There's no reason for me to feel grade 10 pain in the long term. I can always take morphine or that bullet in the head. And bullets are cheaper and less painful than doing stuff I know won't help me.
But I do give up when people refuse to take telling. You've reached that point.
Perhaps, next time you'll learn not to start with such nonsense. I did this Internet Tough Guy troll for a reason. Not to waste your time, but to demonstrate the ultimate futility of your argument.
Argument from ignorance is more of the more pernicious and obnoxious fallacies we commit on Slashdot. "I'm right because if you had experienced some irrelevant but ridiculous situation (be it experiencing "grade 10" pain or walking in my shoes), then you'd agree with me." The truth is, you probably wouldn't. Individual experiences are overrated.
And of course, there's my obvious rebuttal. Since you have never experienced my existence, then you have nothing to say about what I can or can't do by your own logic.
My argument is that if you are ever in grade 10 intense excruciating pain, you are no longer the cool calm collected and always rational person you might believe yourself to be.After the initial shock wears off, nature has a surprise waiting for ya.
.45 slug through my head at that point.That's how much it hurt.
That's about it. I have been in that state, and I would have accepted a
And my point is that you don't get to argue from ignorance only when it suits you.
Wow. Just Wow. You not only know for certain your future, but you absolutely know what does and does not work.
I know everybody's future. We will die. And a good portion of us will try to stay alive with low probability treatments. Maybe I'll be among that number. But to try something that I know won't help me live even a little longer, painfully? Who are you kidding?
And all extrapolations are accurate. Takes a lot of chutzpah to tell someone their argument is retarded, then come up with that priceless bit of hubris.
It does. More proof for my assertion.
A good way to lose your smug arrogance your cocksure knowledge of how you will react in a superior fashion to situations of maximum stress, is maybe trail along with an ambulance or camp out in a emergency ward.
No, it wouldn't. Because emergency room shit is a different sort of maximum stress experience than dying slowly of cancer. Hence, it would not be applicable at all. That's your argument, remember?
Aw, shit, who the hell am I kidding? Carry on.
You could have saved a lot of time using this approach in the first place.
Here's a crazy idea: let's have everyone vote, and then see what the results are before we report on it?
Jeb Bush by a landslide. When you no longer poll (or the polls get sufficiently discredited), it becomes very easy to steer elections to the right candidates. The voters may be tired of more Bushes, but the voting machines are Diebold Republicans.
YOU are the one claiming the science behind the ban on CFCs is weak. YOU are the one claiming we don't know what we prevented by the ban. YOU are the one talking about "hidden consequences" (whatever the fuck that is). YOU are the one claiming CFC replacements are less efficient for refrigeration than CFCs.
Ok, let's talk about that then. The first observation is that humanity has only studied the ozone hole for a few decades. As a result, we aren't even sure it's unusual in extent or duration or if it would get worse in the presence of CFCs (maybe we have underestimated the production and non-anthropogenic destruction of ozone, for example).
As to hidden consequences, they come in two sorts. First, there's the opportunity costs. We will never see how much worse off we are because we chose to impair our economy by banning CFCs. Second, we don't know how much refrigeration and air conditioning use has been curbed due to the higher costs of such equipment. But we do know that people routinely die in heat waves from choosing not to run air conditioning.
Similarly, we know that food stored in the "danger zone", temperatures between 40 F and 140 F (in the US version) spoils faster and increases the risk of harmful foodborne illness. These things harm and kill people all the time, but they are invisible to the public.
So anything that discourages refrigeration and A/C use can be expected to increase the harm caused by things like heat waves or food poisoning. We'll see the heat stroke victim, but we won't see the victim's decision not to use a more expensive air conditioner.
YOU are the one claiming CFC replacements are less efficient for refrigeration than CFCs.
This is common knowledge. CFC replacements are often more chemically reactive (the reactivity greatly reduces the half-life of the chemical in atmosphere, such as HCFCs) and sometimes more hazardous to human health. Having said that, I do see that a formerly common refrigerant CFC, R-12 was significantly less efficient than it's replacements (such as R-134a).
Cost is a big factor. As another replier noted, CFCs (and now the first generation replacements for CFCs) were open to production by generics. Replacements were often protected by patent (particularly, Du Pont who has invested a lot in CFC-replacements) and would be more expensive from that aspect alone. It was the considerable financial benefit to Du Pont that got me thinking about the issue and whether we understand this issue as well as we think we do.
Conflicts of interest do not magically render science irrelevant, but they can introduce considerable biases.
You really have no idea how you'll respond, nor do most people, unless they have been there...
And you base this on whose experience? Not mine, obviously. This argument is bankrupt. You haven't experienced my life, so you can't by the nature of your argument make any statements of certainty about me.
You actually don't know that...
Please stop with the retarded argument from ignorance. I can reasonably extrapolate from my present experience.
How about we don't waste our time blathering of the imperfection of reality and instead find actual evidence to support your various opinions on the matter?
You perhaps have not been in quite enough pain.
And I won't ever be in enough pain to try something that I know won't work.
They didn't give soldiers with blown off limbs morpine for the euphoria.
And morphine isn't a placebo that I know won't work.
And if you are in pain, you might give $100 to someone to pray for you. I mean, at that point, what do you have to lose? $100?
Which is why I wouldn't do that. I would lose $100 and not gain anything by it. The alleged benefit would have to be plausible to me. I'm just not large enough a market to scam.
If that happened to you, YOU would be willing to try homeopathy and pretty much anything else that might work
Why would I expect that it might work? Give me $100 and I'll pray for your recovery. It might work.
Change that, and give developers more freedom to build what people actually want
What makes you think that's a problem? The thing here is that people want sprawl more than they want the alternatives. We've had a while to demonstrate better approaches to living and it's just not going to work without substantial changes which currently appear prohibitively expensive.
The coerced solutions only get noticed when they go wrong.
Wrong enough to get noticed.
banning the use of CFCs as propellants and refrigerants
While I agree that sometimes we need mandatory regulation (and for the most part, your list is a fair example of reasonable mandatory regulation), the CFC issue is much like the AGW issue in that it was a decision made on incomplete data, unproven models, and with hidden consequences. One doesn't usually see the effects of more expensive and less efficient refrigeration or air conditioning. And one doesn't really know what we prevented by this action.
It's main point is that AGW, true or not, is evil and must be stopped,
When truth and reality don't matter, then right and wrong can be anything you want. It's just arbitrary bits to set.
why should we care about climate change if the Earth if it's just a ball of dirt and we can just fly a rocket to another one?
That's simple economics. Because you destroy a valuable asset and impose an unnecessary cost on yourself. You might as well ask why not burn your house down, if you can just move to another house afterward at great cost? Even asking the question demonstrates that one hasn't thought about the consequences any more than the people they supposedly are criticizing.
Actually, your proof has 0/0=0 since the last line evaluates to 0 given the condition that 0^0 = 1.
What fact? I've been in math a while and I have yet to run into anyone who does that in practice. And 0/0 = 1 is a stronger restriction than 0^0 = 1 (because the latter expression has better asymptotic stability, such as considering (ax)^(bx) versus (ax)/(bx)).
On those days of always connected and virtualisation technologies, skips and email in our pocket, why do we have to live in dreadful places?
The problem here is that high concentrations of people are always, invariably dreadful. There's various negative factors that come into play with high population densities (eg, crime, transportation logistics, destruction of green space) that we haven't yet figured out.
Silicon Valley was a nice place before the people. But move several million people into a small place and the original advantages get swamped. It's just the way it is, currently.
Americans have the US Constitution and it is a mighty document. The Constitution has always been a vital part of protecting the freedoms of ordinary Americans from overreach by government. Yet the Constitution is flawed in one terribly dramatic way. By allowing and even encouraging a heavily armed society, it fails to strike any blows for freedom - as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour. The chances of ordinary US citizens successfully mounting an armed uprising against the government is zero. And yet it simultaneously gives those same police a cast iron excuse for arming themselves to the teeth, as they are expected to enforce the law against an exceptionally dangerous population.
So what is this "flaw" of which you speak? I think the flaw is even more basic. A constitution, no matter how well worded, can't prevent people from ignoring it. And it's worth noting that this basic flaw is demonstrated in both the US and the UK in different ways.
You think that proffering a pretext for the timing of the Dem's decision to end the OWS protests lends weight to the notion that the party had the power to end the protests in the first place?
No, that they had the power via powerful proxies to organize and direct the protests in the first place.
Rounding of floating-point multiplication and integer and floating-point division already sacrifices associativity.
Even when doing infinite precision calculations, which don't normally make a sacrifice of associativity, the problem persists.
See your words up there? See how you claim that the Democrat party is directly/indirectly responsible for the OWS protests being as large as they were? See how you insinuate that the Dems (directly or indirectly) let loose local police at dozens of cities worldwide to end the protests when they no longer served the interests of the party?
Responsibility doesn't indicate direct control. And the reason I make that "insinuation" is because that's pretty much what happened.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You provide NO EVIDENCE in support of your claims, which are beyond extraordinary - they are the stuff of lunacy.
I already pointed out several bits of evidence elsewhere in this discussion. First, that the protests were allowed to continue in New York City (and other US cities) until the day before polls indicated that the US public was mostly against the protests. Second, there was high level support for the protests in the early weeks of the protests by politicians from the Democrat party.
Third, one of these politicians happens to be President Obama who by himself has the capability to organize and disperse the OWS (in other words, one doesn't need to ask why the Democrat Party doesn't control something directly when a powerful member of that party happens to be able to do so). And in the beginning, frankly, I think there was a lot of cat eats the cream attitude coming from Democrat politicians - like how many Republican politicians thought the "Sequester" (a strategy of applying pressure via triggering forced budget cuts) was going to work out for themselves.
I also have other sorts of evidence. Many of the constituents of the protests, particularly the NGOs that originally organized the protests and the labor unions who helped contribute protestors and coordinate the logistics are strong and well connected Democrat supporters. If you wanted to protest in OWS, for a time there was logistics and funding for protesting in a way that publicly served the Democrat party agenda (for example, demonstrating an aligned counterweight to the Tea Party protests). And then just as suddenly, that logistics and funding went away when the protests were shown to be counterproductive for the Democrats by polling organizations.
Without context
Such as things going to zero at roughly the same rate (eg, a linear multiple)?
Did it occur to you that the girl might not understand the mathematical issue of divide by zero? Seems like you told her everything she OBVIOUSLY already knew and intentionally omitted the part that might have actually clued her in. And why? Because "she should already know that because of prerequisite course X"? Doesn't matter what she "should" know if she doesn't, and you did nothing but perpetuate her ignorance and encourage her to learn more about how to succeed in ignorance. Seems to me you could have taken a minute or two and help her learn/relearn, and maybe get a tiny shred of that "maybe I'm not stupid" feeling, but instead you chose to take your frustration and bitterness out on her in the type of cold manipulative way that you knew an instructor could get away with. I think you "should already know" how to treat human beings, and regard it as a prerequisite for being a teacher.
Except this guy apparently was not an instructor. Part of the college experience is learning who not to approach for advice and instruction.