Unless I'm mistaken, in the UK, they allow the public to view the CCTV feeds. Little old ladies who used to peek out their window can now assist with enforcing a minimum standard of behavior. The problem as you've identified it would be eliminated if there was more transparency.
It sounds like the UK has a bigger problem: the pervasiveness of government CCTV feeds is so great that they can allow the public to look at them. Most CCTV feeds in the US are privately owned (businesses). Your "more transparency" comes at the expense of a much less privacy.
I do not value privacy. I would rather you be less ignorant, and the only way to achieve that is to push to have you better informed, systematically.
Except this case shows why crowd sourcing this type of thing shouldn't be done, and you say it yourself: they did not have access to all of the data and information. Government officials will have statements from eye witnesses, footage from CCTV, physical evidence at the scene, etc. All the online "detectives" have access to is what was released by the media: some photos and ramblings of reporters who themselves had access to incomplete data. And this only compounded the problem when a mainstream "news" source like the New York Post went to Reddit instead of the government for ID of the suspects in an effort to be the first to broadcast pictures. It basically comes down to this: if you aren't there on the ground, if you don't have hands-on access to the raw, unfiltered data, you do not know everything and you need to shut the hell up, because all you are doing is spreading more disinformation at a time when the signal to noise ratio is already heavily skewed towards the noise.
Basically, incomplete data leads to inaccurate analysis
Unless I'm mistaken, in the UK, they allow the public to view the CCTV feeds. Little old ladies who used to peek out their window can now assist with enforcing a minimum standard of behavior. The problem as you've identified it would be eliminated if there was more transparency.
If anonymous speech didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened.
That's not true at all. Anonymous speech has existed for a long time. Look at something as inane as graffiti, no newspaper is reprinting graffiti on its front page and saying "Now we know who killed JFK." Conversely, if graffiti contained something thought provoking or poetic in its own right, it might make the front page -- say if it was Banksy commenting on social problems.
The problem isn't anonymity, the problem is that people took what was being posted anonymously and gave it undue credibility. If you read about my experiences with drug abuse on Slashdot and you walk away with a life lesson, it doesn't really matter if those drug addiction stories are true or not. It would be nice to be able to verify it but it's not really necessary if what I'm saying rings true. But if I say "George W. Bush was behind 9/11" and you believe that without verifying it and then newspapers start to publish it, that's where the problems arise in an obvious manner.
The media was thirsty to break this story because of all the money it would bring them. Reddit and 4chan were all too happy to put on their inspector gadget hats and play the part of armchair detective. And that's fine, you can go make your subreddit all you want. The problem is when you start to act on it (harass the families) and when you start to disseminate it as "verified." Further problems arise when you then go back and delete and block all this stuff that implicates you as a liar because then your credibility is protected and you can always do it again.
The problem is anonymous speech.
No more so than the internet is the problem. Those are two tools used to carry out a witch hunt. Those aren't the problem, the problem are the irresponsible parties involved with propagating this from an internet forum to media and social networks. They preyed on confusion, hatred and fear without relying on law enforcement to do their job. Those are the real problems.
If you're going to reprint or reshare something as true and fact then you better verify your source. With anonymous speech, you can't verify your source so you should instead look for supporting evidence or not act on it at all and ignore it.
I was passed along three images following the bombing. I deleted them because they were completely unverifiable and had no attribution on them. And I turned out to be right.
Witch hunts rely on mob mentality. Mob mentality stems from a feeling of anonymity. Removing anonymity would remove the mob mentality effect, and allow us to exploit the power of this type of technology for good purpose.
As long as it's not being done anonymously, it's a problem that will solve itself as people learn who and how far they can trust. When mistakes can't come back to haunt you, restraint goes out the window, and it's more difficult to identify who is credible. When you have to wear your mistakes, people can learn to recognize your limitations and not be led astray by them. That's not the same as "punishing" people for their mistakes. The better we understand peoples limitations, the better we can avoid overtaxing them and causing harm to everyone.
The problem is anonymity. We just saw what it causes. A waste of resources and undeserved harm to innocents. Get off your high horse. We need to stop being cowards hiding in the shadows and confront the problem.
As detailed in my last post on this topic, some responsible individual on Reddit named Thirtydegrees decided to give us a little background on what went down (I know it's long but it's worth the read for chronological context).
But wait! We can do better than that! Let's go look at/r/FindBostonBombers to see exactly what happened! Well, you can't. Oddly enough, the founder of that subreddit decided that he should just set it to private (here's a Reddit friendly vulgar meme of my request). Guess what? The founder of findbostonbombers doesn't want to be identified! Bizarre that he/she would create a subreddit devoted to identifying people and then themselves think that it's completely acceptable for their identities to be protected. Should you have a right to know who is accusing you of what? Well, you find out that you have done something wrong... time to own up to it, right? Right? No! Not in the futuristic amazing world of crowdsourcing!
Also hilarious is that they are saying the bombers have been found. Wrong. Whatever they did, they are still innocent until proven guilty! I am quite upset with everyone dropping the "alleged" word and referring to them as "the bombers" instead of "the suspects." They will get their day in court, that's how this stuff works. That's what lead to all the bad stuff that happened in/r/findbostonbombers. They went straight from "we have images that our untrained eye finds suspicious" straight to "these are the guys who killed innocent people, help us identify them and harass their families."
We live in an era of digital lynch mobs.
If anonymous speech didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened. The problem is anonymous speech.
I loved Futurama when they were on Fox, but every episode I watched since they got picked up by CC felt like thinly veiled left-wing propaganda. I'd rather see them cancelled than carry on like this.
When someone says they're "Entitled" to something, what it means is that they have decided that, if you try to deprive them of it, they will use whatever force to assure you fail, and they are giving you an honourable "heads up" before they proceed to do so.
That's it, that's all. Entitlement means the sword.
gold be definition is deflationary there is a set amount of gold on earth. as the population increases there is less gold per person available. hence as population increases you will have deflation because there will be less and less money available per person.
There is nothing stopping competitors from creating their own implementation of Google Play, with accompanying services, and eating Google's lunch. They just haven't chosen to do it.
Nothing except a huge barrier cost of entry, which is a consideration in anti-trust cases. Few companies have the capital (intellectual and monetary) to succeed (make a profit) in such a venture. Most are either competitors or partners with Google. The competitors have no interest in making the Android customer experience better, and the partners have an implicit agreement not to compete. As for a startup, tell potential investors that you plan to beat Google on their playing field, with their ball, and be careful of the scramble as they rush to fund you/sarcasm. Amazon is the one true exception, and they do not offer such a service in many countries, in part because of EC activism/intervention such as is being requested in this case.
Amazon has already proven beyond question that this is a viable approach, and none of the complainants have less capital available than Amazon does. The platform is open. The fact that competitors don't want to use it to reach the marketplace is irrelevant, this still isn't an anti-trust issue.
Isn't that the game of all mobile operating systems these days? iOS tries to leverage you into their universe by corralling you into their shop system, but here you can't easily escape. MS is hoping for the same thing, hooking you into their universe, with no escape. Amazon is doing the same, with their gimped version of Android. At least Google allows you to escape, and install apps from other sources, and avoid using their services (which obviously they'd prefer you use, but they are still mostly optional san third party shenanigans).
Have you tried non-Play alternatives?
Other than The Pirate Bay style services (which constantly bring up "Use the Play Store!" comments whenever a new Android malware comes around), very few alternatives exist. Amazon is probably the most viable, but they're still a tiny fraction of what's available, and not available in most countries where Android is available (just two, I think).
If you're lucky, it's open-source and the APK is available. If not, you're pretty much hosed as the developer chose to stick with play.
Fact is, unless you're China (where Play isn't available), you can't really sell an Android without the Play store. Has also pretty much always been true. Heck, Google managed to get exceptions to Taiwan's consumer protection laws (which everyone else, including Apple, agreed to follow) when Taiwan started enforcing them and Google withdrew Wallet support.
Anyhow, there's an interesting absence on that list of companies forming the complaint.
There is nothing stopping competitors from creating their own implementation of Google Play, with accompanying services, and eating Google's lunch. They just haven't chosen to do it.
Personification metaphors have been used by human beings from a multitude of cultures over thousands of years of known history as a way to convey "knowledge". This "knowledge" comes from human experiences of the natural world. I build knowledge systems for a living, I know one when I see one. One man says "You must cover your head or God will strike you dead", another says "You must cover your head or you will die of heatstroke", but the important thing is that people cover their heads and not die off.
You might think the difference is important, but really, the universe is irreducible, you are not sufficiently complex to contain it, there is no "junk data", and all of them are incomplete and thus wrong when you get right down to it. Whats actually important is the effect a perspective has on the people. Perspectives are tools, and using the wrong tool at the wrong time will kill you.
I'm sorry you can't understand this stuff, Coward.
What's so special about this language anyway, that couldn't be done using C source (perhaps with some extensions) but a different compiler and runtime system?
I've only spent a few minutes reading through the tutorials, but I'm thinking section 3.1 is probably significant:
Gods will "is" the natural order. Having a perfect understanding of God's will would mean having a perfect scientific understanding of the universe. They're different words for the same thing.
Nobody has a perfect understanding of either, but many people will lie to you about these things if there's money to be made. Thing is, once you realize these things are synonymous, you can stop wasting time arguing with someone about God being real and argue instead that they are mistaken in their understanding of God.
So I should risk harm because my rights are so important. If I'm not willing to die for my rights, I shouldn't have them. Great elitist attitude you have there.
Yes. Exactly this. If you're not willing to personally die for your rights, then you most definitely should not have them.
But in my entire life, I've never heard anyone talk about a woman's cunt size.
There's a reason for that - nobody cares about the size of that.
But everyone knows that men are self-conscious about the size of their penis, and so one method used for destroying the confidence of a bloke is to suggest that they are "insufficiently equipped", to suggest they wouldn't be able to satisfy a woman. Hence why people talk about dick sizes.
Now one might say the equivalent for a woman is the size of her breasts, however I'd argue women have greater latitude with that. There are men who prefer nearly all of the breast size spectrum; from small to large there's something for everyone. But men only care about a big dick and so it's easier to offend them by talking about sizes.
Cunts are digital - you either put your digit in it or you don't. There are no other specifications to worry about.
Are you people serious? You've never talked about a tight pussy as being better than a loose pussy? Trust me, a loose pussy is not the same as a tight one. And breasts are very important if you're actually going to reproduce with the woman you're forking, instead of just using each other to get your rocks off. That's where the milk is made, they're not toys. None of this is likely to happen to Adria, thankfully. This bitches DNA has about as much chance of propagating as if her father had given himself a handjob in a public toilet when he was supposed to be meeting her mom.
Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.
Invention means you look at the world around you and try to deduce how the hell you can make this work.
Innovation means you take someone elses already documented invention and reuse it, stepwise refinement style.
It's the difference between the guy who invented the arched doorway and the guy who said "Hey, you could use this to make a window!"
Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.
Innovation != Invention. Innovation is, by definition, easy. Innovation is the blue collar work of the intellectual realm.
Imagine walking into a crowded room, "tagging" the best looking person there, and then doing an in-depth query on their back story. The next time you see them, appropriate info is fed to you to be able to act like you're someone they should know and like.
And that person does a back search on you as well and realizes that you have never been within a mile of them before this night, nor have you ever been to any of the places you claim to have been or done any of the things you claim to have done.
Ouch.
Or, you could just use it to do things like find topics of conversation that would get her excited and avoid doing things that would offend her, and have her enjoy her evening with you and hope to do it again sometime soon.
Perhaps finding out that the third best looking person there is an uninhibited sex freak like you who is going to say yes if you ask her is more your speed.
Then, a year later, you can use it to find other people who are HIV+ like yourself to approach.
Really, though, I don't think any of this conversation has any point... I think Orson is right, and blood will be necessary. Same as it was when Hitler rose to power, same as it was when Philip the Fair executed the Knights of the Temple, etc, etc...
But even if you were correct, so what? If you want to encourage people having children, pay them child support or something. Don't try to blackmail them with marriage annulment or otherwise messing with them.
Ok, fine. Then, I'm in favour of completely dissolving marriage and all the benefits that go with it, because really, this is not about two people pair bonding and loving, they don't need laws for that. It's about two people and how they interact with society.
I think it's nicer to support them as they nest and prepare for their baby, rather than paying them afterwards... but at the same time, I don't think it is fair or reasonable that two people who decide to pair off get a break on their taxes while my roommate and I do not, if there is no expectation that they will be doing anything that benefits society and thus indirectly benefits me.
If marriage is about funding the children who will wipe my ass when I am old, I do not mind paying more than my fair share. If it isn't about anything at all beyond two people who "love" each other, why the hell would I want to subsidize that? Hell, why do you?
One way to end democracy is for the majority become nihilistic and self absorbed, and attempt to lead the entire culture towards decline and death. When that happens, the minority need to treat the majority as though they were an occupying force, and fight for their lives.
The measuring stick for this is not really based on empiricism... it's based on the opinion of large masses of people. If the culture is really legitimately sick but a critical mass of people don't band together and care, they'll all just die off. If the culture is not legitimately sick but a critical mass of people believe that it is, that's still enough to create a civil war.
Personally, I agree with Orson Scott Card. I think the right way to view marriage is as a bargain between a man and a woman, and their community. The couple gets support, and the community gets another generation of mankind. I don't think there's any utility in actively persecuting people for their sexual orientation, but marriage is a mechanism for the community to fund the creation of new life, not just two people making a statement of love for each other.
In order to really hammer home that this is not about prejudice, and refocus the marriage laws around the common good, which is what they should be about, I think the right course is to institute mandatory annulment of fruitless marriages after a period of time... 3 years sounds reasonable.
If you marry and collect the financial incentives, then get an annulment, you should only get one "free pass"... if you then remarry and get a second annulment, or if you get a divorce, you should be forced to repay the money.
When gay people point at these train wreck celebrities who have 6 fucked up marriages in a row and put up stupid slogans, they have a real point. When they point at marriages that don't have families and children, but just a man and a woman getting a discount on their taxes because they promised to share a bed, and say they are no different, they have a real point.
The correct response, I think, is to address these points and make marriage about funding new life. That is, after all, it's social purpose... the human need it meets that justifies its existence. Really, unless gay people look forward to living their retirement years in a culture that has no young to keep the lights on, they should DESIRE a mechanism to pay other people to take responsibility for bearing and raising children... they should not be fighting to subvert it.
It never ceases to amaze me how self-proclaimed "intellectuals" have the exact same hangups about unpleasant but true speech as all the folks they like to pretend they outsmart.
I think tracking should be mandatory, and that it should be accessible to all people. You should be able to know where I am at all times, and I should be able to know where you are at all times, and people who take steps to create obscurity around themselves should be treated as untrustworthy.
Which is nice, because what I think should happen is going to happen regardless of how much a few vocal people bitch about it. This and previous generations of man have taken their own ignorance for granted and see no loss in accepting ignorance in exchange for the competitive advantage secrecy grants them. The up and coming generation of man has the internet at their finger tips, they feel entitled to be informed, and they prefer celebrity to privacy.
Those people will think currently popular views on privacy are primitive, naive and outdated. Just like I do.
This is one of the tragic developments when every job - right down to a janitor's - requires a degree. There are plenty of jobs which do not require anything more than high school, and indeed, people who drop out and go for these are sensible in not wasting time for something they're not meant for. Just as not everybody's gonna be a PhD, similarly, not everybody is gonna be a bachelors or masters. Things like truck drivers, file clerks, postal workers, AAA workers, pizza delivery guys - all of these are important jobs that need to be filled, and none of them require college degrees.
In fact, by requiring higher educational qualifications for these lower level jobs, while the price of education is going up due to the resultant increasing demand, the value of it is going to the toilet. It's a cliché that one needs a good education to be successful - and by successful, I don't mean being one of those party goers in Madison Avenue or Beverly Hills. I mean anybody who can nail a job and lead a content family life. By requiring an education for every job, it just artificially shoots up living costs, puts greater burdens on schools & colleges, and forces overqualified people into the workplace - or more kids staying at home w/ their parents.
For the lower level jobs that don't require much education in & of itself, a better metric would be to pick employees based on character, as opposed to education. Is s/he someone who's dedicated to the job, punctual, honest and capable of sticking to a job for a reasonable amount of time? Too many people in the work force - particularly younger workers - change jobs every few months, which is a telltale sign of a lack of commitment and eager to try making a fast buck. Why not weed out those, instead of checking whether the girl you are gonna hire as a secretary or someone who'll work in the office cafeteria has a Masters degree? This is the result of too much of an emphasis being given on education - even when it's not needed!
What does going to college tell you about a persons character? It tells me they're submissive to authority and lack initiative, which is great for many roles. A person who rejects the idea that he should sit at the feet of the wise old professor and learn and instead go out into the world and get to work making waves might not suck up what you give them and ask you if they're doing ok.
Mediocrity and reliability go to school. The worst and best reject it.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I'm mistaken, in the UK, they allow the public to view the CCTV feeds. Little old ladies who used to peek out their window can now assist with enforcing a minimum standard of behavior. The problem as you've identified it would be eliminated if there was more transparency.
It sounds like the UK has a bigger problem: the pervasiveness of government CCTV feeds is so great that they can allow the public to look at them. Most CCTV feeds in the US are privately owned (businesses). Your "more transparency" comes at the expense of a much less privacy.
I do not value privacy. I would rather you be less ignorant, and the only way to achieve that is to push to have you better informed, systematically.
Except this case shows why crowd sourcing this type of thing shouldn't be done, and you say it yourself: they did not have access to all of the data and information. Government officials will have statements from eye witnesses, footage from CCTV, physical evidence at the scene, etc. All the online "detectives" have access to is what was released by the media: some photos and ramblings of reporters who themselves had access to incomplete data. And this only compounded the problem when a mainstream "news" source like the New York Post went to Reddit instead of the government for ID of the suspects in an effort to be the first to broadcast pictures. It basically comes down to this: if you aren't there on the ground, if you don't have hands-on access to the raw, unfiltered data, you do not know everything and you need to shut the hell up, because all you are doing is spreading more disinformation at a time when the signal to noise ratio is already heavily skewed towards the noise.
Basically, incomplete data leads to inaccurate analysis
Unless I'm mistaken, in the UK, they allow the public to view the CCTV feeds. Little old ladies who used to peek out their window can now assist with enforcing a minimum standard of behavior. The problem as you've identified it would be eliminated if there was more transparency.
If anonymous speech didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened.
That's not true at all. Anonymous speech has existed for a long time. Look at something as inane as graffiti, no newspaper is reprinting graffiti on its front page and saying "Now we know who killed JFK." Conversely, if graffiti contained something thought provoking or poetic in its own right, it might make the front page -- say if it was Banksy commenting on social problems.
The problem isn't anonymity, the problem is that people took what was being posted anonymously and gave it undue credibility. If you read about my experiences with drug abuse on Slashdot and you walk away with a life lesson, it doesn't really matter if those drug addiction stories are true or not. It would be nice to be able to verify it but it's not really necessary if what I'm saying rings true. But if I say "George W. Bush was behind 9/11" and you believe that without verifying it and then newspapers start to publish it, that's where the problems arise in an obvious manner.
The media was thirsty to break this story because of all the money it would bring them. Reddit and 4chan were all too happy to put on their inspector gadget hats and play the part of armchair detective. And that's fine, you can go make your subreddit all you want. The problem is when you start to act on it (harass the families) and when you start to disseminate it as "verified." Further problems arise when you then go back and delete and block all this stuff that implicates you as a liar because then your credibility is protected and you can always do it again.
The problem is anonymous speech.
No more so than the internet is the problem. Those are two tools used to carry out a witch hunt. Those aren't the problem, the problem are the irresponsible parties involved with propagating this from an internet forum to media and social networks. They preyed on confusion, hatred and fear without relying on law enforcement to do their job. Those are the real problems.
If you're going to reprint or reshare something as true and fact then you better verify your source. With anonymous speech, you can't verify your source so you should instead look for supporting evidence or not act on it at all and ignore it.
I was passed along three images following the bombing. I deleted them because they were completely unverifiable and had no attribution on them. And I turned out to be right.
Witch hunts rely on mob mentality. Mob mentality stems from a feeling of anonymity. Removing anonymity would remove the mob mentality effect, and allow us to exploit the power of this type of technology for good purpose.
As long as it's not being done anonymously, it's a problem that will solve itself as people learn who and how far they can trust. When mistakes can't come back to haunt you, restraint goes out the window, and it's more difficult to identify who is credible. When you have to wear your mistakes, people can learn to recognize your limitations and not be led astray by them. That's not the same as "punishing" people for their mistakes. The better we understand peoples limitations, the better we can avoid overtaxing them and causing harm to everyone.
The problem is anonymity. We just saw what it causes. A waste of resources and undeserved harm to innocents. Get off your high horse. We need to stop being cowards hiding in the shadows and confront the problem.
As detailed in my last post on this topic, some responsible individual on Reddit named Thirtydegrees decided to give us a little background on what went down (I know it's long but it's worth the read for chronological context).
But wait! We can do better than that! Let's go look at /r/FindBostonBombers to see exactly what happened! Well, you can't. Oddly enough, the founder of that subreddit decided that he should just set it to private (here's a Reddit friendly vulgar meme of my request). Guess what? The founder of findbostonbombers doesn't want to be identified! Bizarre that he/she would create a subreddit devoted to identifying people and then themselves think that it's completely acceptable for their identities to be protected. Should you have a right to know who is accusing you of what? Well, you find out that you have done something wrong ... time to own up to it, right? Right? No! Not in the futuristic amazing world of crowdsourcing!
Also hilarious is that they are saying the bombers have been found. Wrong. Whatever they did, they are still innocent until proven guilty! I am quite upset with everyone dropping the "alleged" word and referring to them as "the bombers" instead of "the suspects." They will get their day in court, that's how this stuff works. That's what lead to all the bad stuff that happened in /r/findbostonbombers. They went straight from "we have images that our untrained eye finds suspicious" straight to "these are the guys who killed innocent people, help us identify them and harass their families."
We live in an era of digital lynch mobs.
If anonymous speech didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened. The problem is anonymous speech.
I loved Futurama when they were on Fox, but every episode I watched since they got picked up by CC felt like thinly veiled left-wing propaganda. I'd rather see them cancelled than carry on like this.
When someone says they're "Entitled" to something, what it means is that they have decided that, if you try to deprive them of it, they will use whatever force to assure you fail, and they are giving you an honourable "heads up" before they proceed to do so.
That's it, that's all. Entitlement means the sword.
gold be definition is deflationary
there is a set amount of gold on earth. as the population increases there is less gold per person available. hence as population increases you will have deflation because there will be less and less money available per person.
The population does not increase by definition.
There is nothing stopping competitors from creating their own implementation of Google Play, with accompanying services, and eating Google's lunch. They just haven't chosen to do it.
Nothing except a huge barrier cost of entry, which is a consideration in anti-trust cases. Few companies have the capital (intellectual and monetary) to succeed (make a profit) in such a venture. Most are either competitors or partners with Google. The competitors have no interest in making the Android customer experience better, and the partners have an implicit agreement not to compete. As for a startup, tell potential investors that you plan to beat Google on their playing field, with their ball, and be careful of the scramble as they rush to fund you /sarcasm. Amazon is the one true exception, and they do not offer such a service in many countries, in part because of EC activism/intervention such as is being requested in this case.
Amazon has already proven beyond question that this is a viable approach, and none of the complainants have less capital available than Amazon does. The platform is open. The fact that competitors don't want to use it to reach the marketplace is irrelevant, this still isn't an anti-trust issue.
Have you tried non-Play alternatives?
Other than The Pirate Bay style services (which constantly bring up "Use the Play Store!" comments whenever a new Android malware comes around), very few alternatives exist. Amazon is probably the most viable, but they're still a tiny fraction of what's available, and not available in most countries where Android is available (just two, I think).
If you're lucky, it's open-source and the APK is available. If not, you're pretty much hosed as the developer chose to stick with play.
Fact is, unless you're China (where Play isn't available), you can't really sell an Android without the Play store. Has also pretty much always been true. Heck, Google managed to get exceptions to Taiwan's consumer protection laws (which everyone else, including Apple, agreed to follow) when Taiwan started enforcing them and Google withdrew Wallet support.
Anyhow, there's an interesting absence on that list of companies forming the complaint.
There is nothing stopping competitors from creating their own implementation of Google Play, with accompanying services, and eating Google's lunch. They just haven't chosen to do it.
Personification metaphors have been used by human beings from a multitude of cultures over thousands of years of known history as a way to convey "knowledge". This "knowledge" comes from human experiences of the natural world. I build knowledge systems for a living, I know one when I see one. One man says "You must cover your head or God will strike you dead", another says "You must cover your head or you will die of heatstroke", but the important thing is that people cover their heads and not die off.
You might think the difference is important, but really, the universe is irreducible, you are not sufficiently complex to contain it, there is no "junk data", and all of them are incomplete and thus wrong when you get right down to it. Whats actually important is the effect a perspective has on the people. Perspectives are tools, and using the wrong tool at the wrong time will kill you.
I'm sorry you can't understand this stuff, Coward.
What's so special about this language anyway, that couldn't be done using C source (perhaps with some extensions) but a different compiler and runtime system?
I've only spent a few minutes reading through the tutorials, but I'm thinking section 3.1 is probably significant:
http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/tutorial.html#syntax-basics
Gods will "is" the natural order. Having a perfect understanding of God's will would mean having a perfect scientific understanding of the universe. They're different words for the same thing.
Nobody has a perfect understanding of either, but many people will lie to you about these things if there's money to be made. Thing is, once you realize these things are synonymous, you can stop wasting time arguing with someone about God being real and argue instead that they are mistaken in their understanding of God.
So I should risk harm because my rights are so important. If I'm not willing to die for my rights, I shouldn't have them. Great elitist attitude you have there.
Yes. Exactly this. If you're not willing to personally die for your rights, then you most definitely should not have them.
There's a reason for that - nobody cares about the size of that.
But everyone knows that men are self-conscious about the size of their penis, and so one method used for destroying the confidence of a bloke is to suggest that they are "insufficiently equipped", to suggest they wouldn't be able to satisfy a woman. Hence why people talk about dick sizes.
Now one might say the equivalent for a woman is the size of her breasts, however I'd argue women have greater latitude with that. There are men who prefer nearly all of the breast size spectrum; from small to large there's something for everyone. But men only care about a big dick and so it's easier to offend them by talking about sizes.
Cunts are digital - you either put your digit in it or you don't. There are no other specifications to worry about.
Are you people serious? You've never talked about a tight pussy as being better than a loose pussy? Trust me, a loose pussy is not the same as a tight one. And breasts are very important if you're actually going to reproduce with the woman you're forking, instead of just using each other to get your rocks off. That's where the milk is made, they're not toys. None of this is likely to happen to Adria, thankfully. This bitches DNA has about as much chance of propagating as if her father had given himself a handjob in a public toilet when he was supposed to be meeting her mom.
Still doesn't show that it's "easy". Grandparent AC is correct to call bullshit on you.
You're right... even following directions can be difficult if you're an idiot. Why don't we just go with "much, much, much easier".
I just did. Want to see it again?
Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.
Invention means you look at the world around you and try to deduce how the hell you can make this work.
Innovation means you take someone elses already documented invention and reuse it, stepwise refinement style.
It's the difference between the guy who invented the arched doorway and the guy who said "Hey, you could use this to make a window!"
Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.
Innovation != Invention. Innovation is, by definition, easy. Innovation is the blue collar work of the intellectual realm.
And that person does a back search on you as well and realizes that you have never been within a mile of them before this night, nor have you ever been to any of the places you claim to have been or done any of the things you claim to have done.
Ouch.
Or, you could just use it to do things like find topics of conversation that would get her excited and avoid doing things that would offend her, and have her enjoy her evening with you and hope to do it again sometime soon.
Perhaps finding out that the third best looking person there is an uninhibited sex freak like you who is going to say yes if you ask her is more your speed.
Then, a year later, you can use it to find other people who are HIV+ like yourself to approach.
The possibilities are endless!
Really, though, I don't think any of this conversation has any point... I think Orson is right, and blood will be necessary. Same as it was when Hitler rose to power, same as it was when Philip the Fair executed the Knights of the Temple, etc, etc...
It's really very predictable.
But even if you were correct, so what? If you want to encourage people having children, pay them child support or something. Don't try to blackmail them with marriage annulment or otherwise messing with them.
Ok, fine. Then, I'm in favour of completely dissolving marriage and all the benefits that go with it, because really, this is not about two people pair bonding and loving, they don't need laws for that. It's about two people and how they interact with society.
I think it's nicer to support them as they nest and prepare for their baby, rather than paying them afterwards... but at the same time, I don't think it is fair or reasonable that two people who decide to pair off get a break on their taxes while my roommate and I do not, if there is no expectation that they will be doing anything that benefits society and thus indirectly benefits me.
If marriage is about funding the children who will wipe my ass when I am old, I do not mind paying more than my fair share. If it isn't about anything at all beyond two people who "love" each other, why the hell would I want to subsidize that? Hell, why do you?
One way to end democracy is for the majority become nihilistic and self absorbed, and attempt to lead the entire culture towards decline and death. When that happens, the minority need to treat the majority as though they were an occupying force, and fight for their lives.
The measuring stick for this is not really based on empiricism... it's based on the opinion of large masses of people. If the culture is really legitimately sick but a critical mass of people don't band together and care, they'll all just die off. If the culture is not legitimately sick but a critical mass of people believe that it is, that's still enough to create a civil war.
Personally, I agree with Orson Scott Card. I think the right way to view marriage is as a bargain between a man and a woman, and their community. The couple gets support, and the community gets another generation of mankind. I don't think there's any utility in actively persecuting people for their sexual orientation, but marriage is a mechanism for the community to fund the creation of new life, not just two people making a statement of love for each other.
In order to really hammer home that this is not about prejudice, and refocus the marriage laws around the common good, which is what they should be about, I think the right course is to institute mandatory annulment of fruitless marriages after a period of time... 3 years sounds reasonable.
If you marry and collect the financial incentives, then get an annulment, you should only get one "free pass"... if you then remarry and get a second annulment, or if you get a divorce, you should be forced to repay the money.
When gay people point at these train wreck celebrities who have 6 fucked up marriages in a row and put up stupid slogans, they have a real point. When they point at marriages that don't have families and children, but just a man and a woman getting a discount on their taxes because they promised to share a bed, and say they are no different, they have a real point.
The correct response, I think, is to address these points and make marriage about funding new life. That is, after all, it's social purpose... the human need it meets that justifies its existence. Really, unless gay people look forward to living their retirement years in a culture that has no young to keep the lights on, they should DESIRE a mechanism to pay other people to take responsibility for bearing and raising children... they should not be fighting to subvert it.
I assume this is at -1 for Unpleasant Truth?
It never ceases to amaze me how self-proclaimed "intellectuals" have the exact same hangups about unpleasant but true speech as all the folks they like to pretend they outsmart.
Tell it, brother!
I think tracking should be mandatory, and that it should be accessible to all people. You should be able to know where I am at all times, and I should be able to know where you are at all times, and people who take steps to create obscurity around themselves should be treated as untrustworthy.
Which is nice, because what I think should happen is going to happen regardless of how much a few vocal people bitch about it. This and previous generations of man have taken their own ignorance for granted and see no loss in accepting ignorance in exchange for the competitive advantage secrecy grants them. The up and coming generation of man has the internet at their finger tips, they feel entitled to be informed, and they prefer celebrity to privacy.
Those people will think currently popular views on privacy are primitive, naive and outdated. Just like I do.
Precisely!!!
This is one of the tragic developments when every job - right down to a janitor's - requires a degree. There are plenty of jobs which do not require anything more than high school, and indeed, people who drop out and go for these are sensible in not wasting time for something they're not meant for. Just as not everybody's gonna be a PhD, similarly, not everybody is gonna be a bachelors or masters. Things like truck drivers, file clerks, postal workers, AAA workers, pizza delivery guys - all of these are important jobs that need to be filled, and none of them require college degrees.
In fact, by requiring higher educational qualifications for these lower level jobs, while the price of education is going up due to the resultant increasing demand, the value of it is going to the toilet. It's a cliché that one needs a good education to be successful - and by successful, I don't mean being one of those party goers in Madison Avenue or Beverly Hills. I mean anybody who can nail a job and lead a content family life. By requiring an education for every job, it just artificially shoots up living costs, puts greater burdens on schools & colleges, and forces overqualified people into the workplace - or more kids staying at home w/ their parents.
For the lower level jobs that don't require much education in & of itself, a better metric would be to pick employees based on character, as opposed to education. Is s/he someone who's dedicated to the job, punctual, honest and capable of sticking to a job for a reasonable amount of time? Too many people in the work force - particularly younger workers - change jobs every few months, which is a telltale sign of a lack of commitment and eager to try making a fast buck. Why not weed out those, instead of checking whether the girl you are gonna hire as a secretary or someone who'll work in the office cafeteria has a Masters degree? This is the result of too much of an emphasis being given on education - even when it's not needed!
What does going to college tell you about a persons character? It tells me they're submissive to authority and lack initiative, which is great for many roles. A person who rejects the idea that he should sit at the feet of the wise old professor and learn and instead go out into the world and get to work making waves might not suck up what you give them and ask you if they're doing ok.
Mediocrity and reliability go to school. The worst and best reject it.
What was truly disappointing was his speculations about the DHS agents feelings. That was very unprofessional, to say the very least.
You deserve mod points