Real actual skeptic here (I think). Is the internet reducing religious affiliation because people are being exposed to different opinions? Or is the internet addictive, and does it subsume all of its occupants' time? Atheists are so eager to claim success that they don't even remember to check for confirmation bias and apply occam's razor.
Religious affiliation is correlated with increased mental health and a strong local community. The outspoken minority of religious fucks make the rest look bad to the undiscriminating outsider (oblig).
From where I stand, it looks like people are getting more extreme than their churches. They want to subjugate and punish and judge, and go against all the good parts of their religions. So they are leaving the churches in droves, and taking their hatred and ignorance to the internet. This may be a result of sampling bias (see oblig link above), and begs for good science to be done.
What the hell guys, if you're going to try and design something to replaced an entrenched convention, you might as well go whole hog. Oh wait, no, I know... their website isn't in Esperanto because such projects always fail.
And look at you, buying into the government's blame-shifting. This is the opposite of Nuremberg -- don't blame us, we were only giving orders! Blame the eeeevil companies that did the deed, not the innocent government who merely demanded compliance with threat of imprisonment or worse, fines!
No, you see all of the images from the paper right up at the top. The kicker is that it can only do monochrome. So your x-ray voyeur shots will only work for girls and boys wearing full-body paint under their clothes. Or maybe you can illuminate them with lasers. I'm sure nobody will notice.
Maybe that's because Stalin was a totalitarian, which totally jives with the conservative mindset. Want to know who else conservatives didn't celebrate the demise of? Hitler. Is that because conservatives are evil? No. It's because they're too blind with greed to recognize any evil other than "taxes" (which they desperately depend upon to keep their businesses solvent).
I wonder... could we force them to keep metametadata? Y'know, summaries of what fields were copied out of what databases of what companies on what days? That way, we could still have a snowball's chance at proving that individual customers had their privacy impinged. Of course, this is all rhetoric: no, we can't force them to keep anything, and no, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance at proving shit against the fed. Fun idea, though, having a government that behaves responsibly.
Right... so... you want to be sheltered from the worst news from the unprivileged, because you feel powerless to stop it? Tell that to the people in that situation, with significantly less power to stop it! Yes! Let's not talk about the bad things in the world unless the newspiece has a button that you can personally click to solve that problem. That's exactly how problem-solving works. Who knows why the press never thought of that!
No, the downside is that the muddy seafloor is chock full of life. The energy absorbed by that seafloor churns the mud, continually stirring around nutrients, plankton, eggs and sperm, algae, etc. A huge amount of sealife spawns in this mud -- stop churning it, and you kill everything there. And as these things usually go... killing a huge number of species tends to open a door to noxious, invasive, damaging monocultures.
No. The program does not check itself. You rely on faulty humans for that part. Duh. There's gotta be some fault in the rigor or you'll never get your math paper published.
I'll undermine your 'proof by authority' by pointing out that the best you can possibly get from my assertion is a fallacy of false generalization. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that GP is correct. Some mathematicians are unsatisfied by computer proofs. Possibly most mathematicians. I've apparently gone on record calling the majority of mathematicians "idiots". Worse, I'm on the job market. Good thing my real name isn't on this account!
If I get tenure, I'll get to put my name to my opinions. If I'm a tenth as cranky and outspoken as Doron Zeilberger, I'll be satisfied.
You're the imaginative one, aren't you? Distributed proofs tend to duplicate work -- at least k contributors prove every claim, and each contributor should have some portion (maybe log(# contributions) or so, IIRC) of their work double-checked by an expert. Sure, it takes k times longer, but you can design it to take advantage of statistics to certify the proof more trustworthy than the average math paper.
I wish modern mathematicians believed the math that they prove day after day for undergrads. If they did, this wouldn't be controversial.
Mathematicians are supposed to be able to think at a higher level of abstraction than most other folks. Any mathematician who claims that 'this is too much for a human to check' is an idiot. It's not too much. We understand how computers work. They're way less error-prone than humans.
1) Verify the proof that the verification algorithm works.
2) Obtain several independent simple, portable implementations of said verification.
3) Run said implementations on proof certificate on a variety of hardware.
Trust the math, and where it comes to the hardware and software, trust but verify. Too long to check without aid of a computer? Sure, I'll buy that. But you'd have to be an idiot to want to check this proof without a computer. Why is this news? (actually, the result in discrepancy theory is wonderful, and I'm very happy to see it here on Slashdot... but massive computer proofs are truly nothing new)
Funny thing about this. They've checked it. Actually, their "check" of this proof is many of orders of magnitude more rigorous than when, for example, a reviewer "checks" a math paper for errors before firing off a positive review. Nondisclaimer: I'm a mathematician.
No. This doesn't even make sense if there's only one car doing it. The idea of a human controlling such a drone is laughable... landing on an aircraft carrier in an open ocean is hard enough for experienced, trained pilots with hundreds of logged hours -- an untrained civilian landing on a car swerving around in traffic, while possibly controlling said car? With a rat's nest of utility lines, traffic signs, street lights, business signs and tunnels directly overhead? Bullshit.
Even assuming an AI that can land on a moving car every time, sensors and planning algorithms are decades away from being able to handle the overhead rat's nest.
So, the drone will almost certainly crash-land in its first few flights, and necessarily have a powerful enough engine to catch up to a car doing 80mph on the freeway. That powerful engine weighs a good 10 pounds at a minimum. Ever see how much damage a 3 gram pebble can do to your windshield? There is no way that this will ever get off the ground.
See, this is the thoughtless sort of legislation that makes the world an awful place to live. I immediately see your tax as an incentive to hardwire the horn on. I pay at most $.1 per trip in horn tax, and still get to use it as much as I like.
And apps, apparently. My luddite tendencies are catching up to me. Smart what? My phone remembers peoples' phone numbers for me, I think that's pretty effing smart. I still don't even use bookmarks -- if I can't remember the URL, the website wasn't that important to begin with.
Don't get your hopes up. I've got a different theory: people have stopped using google to find / research facebook. Those who use facebook use it more than they use the rest of the internet -- they don't need to find it, it's the first thing their browser opens. Those who don't use it already know what it is. No need to google it.
This is already EXACTLY what happens. The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), for example, is a private company whose largest (though not sole, if you read between the lines... a comforting thought) client is the NSA. So basically, Obama's "reform" is "don't worry guys, we'll totally change everything: third parties will collect and analyze your information, the NSA will only purchase access to that information. Just like we're already doing." Sadly, this is "change I can believe in" 'cause it's the same bullshit I've come to expect from this twofaced asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum mechanics is not strange. Humans are simply stupid.
Stop buying boutique shit, dumbass. Get it from the garden store like the rest of us. It only costs a few bucks a yard.
Real actual skeptic here (I think). Is the internet reducing religious affiliation because people are being exposed to different opinions? Or is the internet addictive, and does it subsume all of its occupants' time? Atheists are so eager to claim success that they don't even remember to check for confirmation bias and apply occam's razor.
Religious affiliation is correlated with increased mental health and a strong local community. The outspoken minority of religious fucks make the rest look bad to the undiscriminating outsider (oblig).
From where I stand, it looks like people are getting more extreme than their churches. They want to subjugate and punish and judge, and go against all the good parts of their religions. So they are leaving the churches in droves, and taking their hatred and ignorance to the internet. This may be a result of sampling bias (see oblig link above), and begs for good science to be done.
What the hell guys, if you're going to try and design something to replaced an entrenched convention, you might as well go whole hog. Oh wait, no, I know... their website isn't in Esperanto because such projects always fail.
And look at you, buying into the government's blame-shifting. This is the opposite of Nuremberg -- don't blame us, we were only giving orders! Blame the eeeevil companies that did the deed, not the innocent government who merely demanded compliance with threat of imprisonment or worse, fines!
No, you see all of the images from the paper right up at the top. The kicker is that it can only do monochrome. So your x-ray voyeur shots will only work for girls and boys wearing full-body paint under their clothes. Or maybe you can illuminate them with lasers. I'm sure nobody will notice.
Maybe that's because Stalin was a totalitarian, which totally jives with the conservative mindset. Want to know who else conservatives didn't celebrate the demise of? Hitler. Is that because conservatives are evil? No. It's because they're too blind with greed to recognize any evil other than "taxes" (which they desperately depend upon to keep their businesses solvent).
I wonder... could we force them to keep metametadata? Y'know, summaries of what fields were copied out of what databases of what companies on what days? That way, we could still have a snowball's chance at proving that individual customers had their privacy impinged. Of course, this is all rhetoric: no, we can't force them to keep anything, and no, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance at proving shit against the fed. Fun idea, though, having a government that behaves responsibly.
That's a pretty nosy question if I've ever heard one. But since you ask, it smells pretty nosy.
Right... so... you want to be sheltered from the worst news from the unprivileged, because you feel powerless to stop it? Tell that to the people in that situation, with significantly less power to stop it! Yes! Let's not talk about the bad things in the world unless the newspiece has a button that you can personally click to solve that problem. That's exactly how problem-solving works. Who knows why the press never thought of that!
No, the downside is that the muddy seafloor is chock full of life. The energy absorbed by that seafloor churns the mud, continually stirring around nutrients, plankton, eggs and sperm, algae, etc. A huge amount of sealife spawns in this mud -- stop churning it, and you kill everything there. And as these things usually go... killing a huge number of species tends to open a door to noxious, invasive, damaging monocultures.
Hire and train real 13 year-old girls to seduce 'predators' online and lure them into an IRL meeting. Duh.
No. The program does not check itself. You rely on faulty humans for that part. Duh. There's gotta be some fault in the rigor or you'll never get your math paper published.
I'll undermine your 'proof by authority' by pointing out that the best you can possibly get from my assertion is a fallacy of false generalization. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that GP is correct. Some mathematicians are unsatisfied by computer proofs. Possibly most mathematicians. I've apparently gone on record calling the majority of mathematicians "idiots". Worse, I'm on the job market. Good thing my real name isn't on this account!
If I get tenure, I'll get to put my name to my opinions. If I'm a tenth as cranky and outspoken as Doron Zeilberger, I'll be satisfied.
You're the imaginative one, aren't you? Distributed proofs tend to duplicate work -- at least k contributors prove every claim, and each contributor should have some portion (maybe log(# contributions) or so, IIRC) of their work double-checked by an expert. Sure, it takes k times longer, but you can design it to take advantage of statistics to certify the proof more trustworthy than the average math paper.
I wish modern mathematicians believed the math that they prove day after day for undergrads. If they did, this wouldn't be controversial.
Maybe out in Granola Country. Where I'm from, we measure in Hummers.
Mathematicians are supposed to be able to think at a higher level of abstraction than most other folks. Any mathematician who claims that 'this is too much for a human to check' is an idiot. It's not too much. We understand how computers work. They're way less error-prone than humans.
1) Verify the proof that the verification algorithm works.
2) Obtain several independent simple, portable implementations of said verification.
3) Run said implementations on proof certificate on a variety of hardware.
Trust the math, and where it comes to the hardware and software, trust but verify. Too long to check without aid of a computer? Sure, I'll buy that. But you'd have to be an idiot to want to check this proof without a computer. Why is this news? (actually, the result in discrepancy theory is wonderful, and I'm very happy to see it here on Slashdot... but massive computer proofs are truly nothing new)
Funny thing about this. They've checked it. Actually, their "check" of this proof is many of orders of magnitude more rigorous than when, for example, a reviewer "checks" a math paper for errors before firing off a positive review. Nondisclaimer: I'm a mathematician.
No. This doesn't even make sense if there's only one car doing it. The idea of a human controlling such a drone is laughable... landing on an aircraft carrier in an open ocean is hard enough for experienced, trained pilots with hundreds of logged hours -- an untrained civilian landing on a car swerving around in traffic, while possibly controlling said car? With a rat's nest of utility lines, traffic signs, street lights, business signs and tunnels directly overhead? Bullshit.
Even assuming an AI that can land on a moving car every time, sensors and planning algorithms are decades away from being able to handle the overhead rat's nest.
So, the drone will almost certainly crash-land in its first few flights, and necessarily have a powerful enough engine to catch up to a car doing 80mph on the freeway. That powerful engine weighs a good 10 pounds at a minimum. Ever see how much damage a 3 gram pebble can do to your windshield? There is no way that this will ever get off the ground.
This idea: bullshit.
It's a simple matter of economics. You get the most honking for your buck. It's clearly an obvious no-brainer.
See, this is the thoughtless sort of legislation that makes the world an awful place to live. I immediately see your tax as an incentive to hardwire the horn on. I pay at most $.1 per trip in horn tax, and still get to use it as much as I like.
And apps, apparently. My luddite tendencies are catching up to me. Smart what? My phone remembers peoples' phone numbers for me, I think that's pretty effing smart. I still don't even use bookmarks -- if I can't remember the URL, the website wasn't that important to begin with.
You type the www for hostnames that don't need it? Get off my slashdot, luser.
Don't get your hopes up. I've got a different theory: people have stopped using google to find / research facebook. Those who use facebook use it more than they use the rest of the internet -- they don't need to find it, it's the first thing their browser opens. Those who don't use it already know what it is. No need to google it.
This is already EXACTLY what happens. The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), for example, is a private company whose largest (though not sole, if you read between the lines... a comforting thought) client is the NSA. So basically, Obama's "reform" is "don't worry guys, we'll totally change everything: third parties will collect and analyze your information, the NSA will only purchase access to that information. Just like we're already doing." Sadly, this is "change I can believe in" 'cause it's the same bullshit I've come to expect from this twofaced asshole.