I have no idea what the mechanism might be. But all you need to do to observe the sun increasing the mass of the earth is to plant a seed in the dirt, it's not a weird concept.
With all the radiant energy coming off the sun, there's every reason to believe it's interacting with the planetary core in ways that we have no understanding of.
While "you reap what you sow" may be true to some extent, the concept of a just world is generally used as a way to build an illusion of safety. For example: The woman who gets raped was asking for it. If we are morally chaste, nobody in my family is likely to be raped. The person who is poor simply isn't working hard enough. As long as I work hard, I will never be poor.
(1) The world isn't fair - being a genius doesn't automatically mean you have compensating disadvantages. It's quite nice actually!
The moral of the story is, you thought you were doing what the universe demands of those who would not be raped, but your understanding of the universe is flawed.
You thought you were doing what the universe demands of those who would not be poor, but your understanding of the universe if flawed.
You can replace "the universe" with God, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it changes nothing.
You know, sometimes being a genius involves standing there, miserable, trying to convince your friends to stop dancing on the train tracks because you can see the train coming and they cannot. When you have too much emotional attachment to walk away, and all your genius brings you is the ability to suffer under the knowledge of what's going to happen to you... it's enough to drive any person insane.
The only fallacy here is Wikipedia. "Just World" is not a fallacy, as presented by this web site full of false information.
"You reap what you sow" etc are all TRUE. Not a fallacy at all.
Yes. Thankfully, the flying spaghetti monster ensures that people who are mean to others don't get any meatballs with their pasta, thereby ensuring a just world.
If you had attacked a naive idea of justice, that would have been insightful. As it stands, you're attacking the concept of causality, which is moronic. You're not even doing a particularly good job of it.
I don't believe any of it. I think this is a novel theory, though, and provocative.
I have no idea where the theoretical extra mass comes from, but I wouldn't think it unreasonable that the Earth is gaining mass from the Sun. Although, it wouldn't really even need to have extra mass if the earth was just less dense. Not unreasonable to suppose the Sun causes that sort of effect either...
In this realm, success is measured in what the organisms wandering the surface of the world look like after you are dead. It's called "survival of the fittest", and it doesn't care in the slightest what your opinion is of how a person lived their life.
You're not wrong... but, there are scenarios where, for example, a designer comes up with 4 proposed designs, all of which are good, and someone need to make a decision as to which one to go with without any meaningful way to differentiate. This algorithm allows all 4 to be approved as "functional and not embarrassing" and put into place.
And yes, 2 years later, you might decide it's a good idea to hire a designer to freshen things up, and have them deliver you a few more designs. But, with a pattern like this, you don't need to discard the old ones... you can add the new ones in amongst the old and have the algorithm elevate the one that is popular.
But the real gem would be to find out that the design that was least popular 4 years ago is actually in better sync with what is stylish now, more so than the ones you paid for 6 months ago, and have that dusty old design automatically leap to the front of the queue without you even having to think about it.
The fact that you think every competitor to windows having to pay them $99 just to have the PRIVILEGE of being installed on YOUR hardware is "trivial" frightens me somewhat. The fact that you probably aren't alone frightens me a great deal.
Yeah, frightening. I think it's trivial for a business that wants to use SSL encryption to pay for an SSL certificate too.
If you used this type of algorithm to rotate a selection of different-but-good style sheets on a website, you'd be able to go past "which one is best at the time the test was devised" and actually build sites that pre-emptively and reactively stay "fashionable", "trendy" and "cool".
If no one else were willing to do it, your comp sci teacher could pick the flavour of LiveCD he likes, pay Verisign $99 to have it signed and be able to do just as he was before. And, he could throw it up on a torrent site and anyone else who downloaded it would be able to boot off it in secure mode. In fact, if you were a serious malware writer, you could probably bypass this obstacle by having your malware signed with a fake identity. All they're really doing through this process is attaching a name to a hunk of code.
Oh, of course, but having to enable/disable secure boot (which Windows won't boot without) each time you switch OS's (on a dual-boot setup) is going to be a royal PAIN IN THE ASS. Also note that less-technical distros (arch, debian, Mint, and probably even Ubuntu) will be affected by this.
The people distributing Arch can sign their releases for $99. The people distributing Debian can sign their releases for $99. Etc, etc. It's a trivial cost for any of the distributions you named to follow in Fedora's footsteps.
On a completely unrelated note... wouldn't it be awesome to see RMS' reaction if all the major GNU/Linux distributions were signed by Microsoft?
Support of RHEL as a signed O/S under UEFI fits into their marketing strategy pretty well, and it gives them a way to differentiate themselves from CentOS.
Unless I read the article incorrectly, it costs $99 to produce signed binaries. Which is inconvenient if you as an end user want to be able to compile your own stuff and sign it, but it means the folks at CentOS only need to pay $99 to release signed binaries for all their end users.
You think that breeding excessively is successful, while calculating your ability to support your offspring and the impact on your life - and in the long run, their life - is not?
You, sir, win at common sense and logic. By all means, continue to eat at Carl's Jr, and enjoy your Brawndo.
Considering your sig, I find it funny as hell that you continue to hold faith in your rationalizations despite the rampant evidence that they lead their adherents to extinction.
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately, the dumber they get the more they breed. And they always do so before the heart attack or cancer gets them.
You see what "they" are doing leads to success, while what "you" are doing leads to extinction, and you accuse "them" of being dumb.
I'm reminded of a quote by Forrest Gump... "Stupid is as stupid does"...
I'm curious... how do you reconcile this image of communism as "looney" with the fact that it keeps ending up associated with superpowers?
The former USSR and China are both pretty effective demonstrations that even if their way of life isn't to your taste, they clearly did SOMETHING right.
Anarchy doesn't really mean the elimination of rules or social order
The elimination of rules and social order is precisely the definition of anarchy. Everyone takes care of him or herself, with no government or authority over them.
You've been led to believe this by people whose control over you would be lost if you developed a more sophisticated understanding of what you're talking about.
It does seem almost deliberately confusing, doesn't it?
That's the way these wars are fought. If you can take advantage of mass media to create a multitude of crazy associations with a word, you can prevent people from uniting behind it.
So, you take Anarchy out of the realms of intellectual discourse by associating it with a weird guy in a black cape with a loony-tunes bomb and you'll create so much confusion that people will waste their time, unable to find each other. And heap on more associations, and more, and more, until the word is as communicative as a grunting noise.
You can use it for defense, too. Get yourself in a situation where your political organization, your nation, your religion and your race all use the same label, and no one will ever be able to criticize you because you can use rhetoric to twist your critics words and make them sound like an idiot.
Real anarchism at its core is about the recognition of the basic rights, ie the right to self ownership of one's own body, and the descendent right to property. All other rights spring from those two rights.
These so called "anarchists" recognize no rights, and as such have debased themselves to the level of wild animals. I can't put into words the depth of my contempt for such "people".
I would suggest you read "The Conquest of Bread" for a different perspective on what anarchy means. It's available on Project Gutenberg for free
When the anarchists took over in Europe, they continued to work the factories and maintain public services. They just administered their affairs through elections instead of property. It proved more efficient than its predecessors, but then the fascists kicked their ass because they didn't have the capacity to flow into a vertical heirarchy and gain the might that structure grants, then flow back into a flattened power structure once the threat was gone.
I spend a lot of time thinking about that flow, and how tyranny and destruction follow when it's interrupted, and how we might design political-economic structures to accomodate it better....
So nobody gets to observe you intrusively and in detail...except the one entity proven to be vastly the most harmful to human existence, as shown by actual historical evidence. Indeed, the vast bulk of history is this evidence itself.
Also as learned from history, nobody learns from history.
You're insane. And when I say that, I mean you've got a fundamental disconnect from reality.
If this "entity" was so harmful to human existence, evolution would have destroyed it and it's adherents long ago.
If you want to effect real change, you need to make things that are necessary but onerous obsolete, and that starts with acknowledging that the intrinsic value of those patterns you hate is so significant that it's been overcoming the objections of the unsophisticated since before you hit the scene. If you can't see the merit of what you're trying to replace, you'll never succeed in creating a replacement.
Cultures whose sense of outrage leads them to recoil from paying costs that are necessary quickly become extinct. Then, a hundred years later, when all traces of their failed efforts are erased, it's touted as "novel" and "progress".
Somebody is off their medication today. Not that I think you're 100% wrong, but I think reality is probably a lot more mundane, greedy, and incompetent than you think. Your version reads like a comic book villain out to control the world
Plus, he forgot the part about giving the girls birth control and the boys porn and video games.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea what the mechanism might be. But all you need to do to observe the sun increasing the mass of the earth is to plant a seed in the dirt, it's not a weird concept.
With all the radiant energy coming off the sun, there's every reason to believe it's interacting with the planetary core in ways that we have no understanding of.
While "you reap what you sow" may be true to some extent, the concept of a just world is generally used as a way to build an illusion of safety. For example:
The woman who gets raped was asking for it. If we are morally chaste, nobody in my family is likely to be raped.
The person who is poor simply isn't working hard enough. As long as I work hard, I will never be poor.
(1) The world isn't fair - being a genius doesn't automatically mean you have compensating disadvantages. It's quite nice actually!
That reminds me of the All Children Are Gifted diatribe.
The moral of the story is, you thought you were doing what the universe demands of those who would not be raped, but your understanding of the universe is flawed.
You thought you were doing what the universe demands of those who would not be poor, but your understanding of the universe if flawed.
You can replace "the universe" with God, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it changes nothing.
You know, sometimes being a genius involves standing there, miserable, trying to convince your friends to stop dancing on the train tracks because you can see the train coming and they cannot. When you have too much emotional attachment to walk away, and all your genius brings you is the ability to suffer under the knowledge of what's going to happen to you... it's enough to drive any person insane.
The only fallacy here is Wikipedia. "Just World" is not a fallacy, as presented by this web site full of false information.
"You reap what you sow" etc are all TRUE. Not a fallacy at all.
Yes. Thankfully, the flying spaghetti monster ensures that people who are mean to others don't get any meatballs with their pasta, thereby ensuring a just world.
If you had attacked a naive idea of justice, that would have been insightful. As it stands, you're attacking the concept of causality, which is moronic. You're not even doing a particularly good job of it.
I don't believe any of it. I think this is a novel theory, though, and provocative.
I have no idea where the theoretical extra mass comes from, but I wouldn't think it unreasonable that the Earth is gaining mass from the Sun. Although, it wouldn't really even need to have extra mass if the earth was just less dense. Not unreasonable to suppose the Sun causes that sort of effect either...
Are you qualified to say why this is wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
In this realm, success is measured in what the organisms wandering the surface of the world look like after you are dead. It's called "survival of the fittest", and it doesn't care in the slightest what your opinion is of how a person lived their life.
You're not wrong... but, there are scenarios where, for example, a designer comes up with 4 proposed designs, all of which are good, and someone need to make a decision as to which one to go with without any meaningful way to differentiate. This algorithm allows all 4 to be approved as "functional and not embarrassing" and put into place.
And yes, 2 years later, you might decide it's a good idea to hire a designer to freshen things up, and have them deliver you a few more designs. But, with a pattern like this, you don't need to discard the old ones... you can add the new ones in amongst the old and have the algorithm elevate the one that is popular.
But the real gem would be to find out that the design that was least popular 4 years ago is actually in better sync with what is stylish now, more so than the ones you paid for 6 months ago, and have that dusty old design automatically leap to the front of the queue without you even having to think about it.
The fact that you think every competitor to windows having to pay them $99 just to have the PRIVILEGE of being installed on YOUR hardware is "trivial" frightens me somewhat. The fact that you probably aren't alone frightens me a great deal.
Yeah, frightening. I think it's trivial for a business that wants to use SSL encryption to pay for an SSL certificate too.
If you used this type of algorithm to rotate a selection of different-but-good style sheets on a website, you'd be able to go past "which one is best at the time the test was devised" and actually build sites that pre-emptively and reactively stay "fashionable", "trendy" and "cool".
If no one else were willing to do it, your comp sci teacher could pick the flavour of LiveCD he likes, pay Verisign $99 to have it signed and be able to do just as he was before. And, he could throw it up on a torrent site and anyone else who downloaded it would be able to boot off it in secure mode. In fact, if you were a serious malware writer, you could probably bypass this obstacle by having your malware signed with a fake identity. All they're really doing through this process is attaching a name to a hunk of code.
Oh, of course, but having to enable/disable secure boot (which Windows won't boot without) each time you switch OS's (on a dual-boot setup) is going to be a royal PAIN IN THE ASS. Also note that less-technical distros (arch, debian, Mint, and probably even Ubuntu) will be affected by this.
The people distributing Arch can sign their releases for $99. The people distributing Debian can sign their releases for $99. Etc, etc. It's a trivial cost for any of the distributions you named to follow in Fedora's footsteps.
On a completely unrelated note... wouldn't it be awesome to see RMS' reaction if all the major GNU/Linux distributions were signed by Microsoft?
Support of RHEL as a signed O/S under UEFI fits into their marketing strategy pretty well, and it gives them a way to differentiate themselves from CentOS.
Unless I read the article incorrectly, it costs $99 to produce signed binaries. Which is inconvenient if you as an end user want to be able to compile your own stuff and sign it, but it means the folks at CentOS only need to pay $99 to release signed binaries for all their end users.
You think that breeding excessively is successful, while calculating your ability to support your offspring and the impact on your life - and in the long run, their life - is not?
You, sir, win at common sense and logic. By all means, continue to eat at Carl's Jr, and enjoy your Brawndo.
Considering your sig, I find it funny as hell that you continue to hold faith in your rationalizations despite the rampant evidence that they lead their adherents to extinction.
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately, the dumber they get the more they breed. And they always do so before the heart attack or cancer gets them.
You see what "they" are doing leads to success, while what "you" are doing leads to extinction, and you accuse "them" of being dumb.
I'm reminded of a quote by Forrest Gump... "Stupid is as stupid does"...
I'm curious... how do you reconcile this image of communism as "looney" with the fact that it keeps ending up associated with superpowers?
The former USSR and China are both pretty effective demonstrations that even if their way of life isn't to your taste, they clearly did SOMETHING right.
Anarchy doesn't really mean the elimination of rules or social order
The elimination of rules and social order is precisely the definition of anarchy. Everyone takes care of him or herself, with no government or authority over them.
You've been led to believe this by people whose control over you would be lost if you developed a more sophisticated understanding of what you're talking about.
It does seem almost deliberately confusing, doesn't it?
That's the way these wars are fought. If you can take advantage of mass media to create a multitude of crazy associations with a word, you can prevent people from uniting behind it.
So, you take Anarchy out of the realms of intellectual discourse by associating it with a weird guy in a black cape with a loony-tunes bomb and you'll create so much confusion that people will waste their time, unable to find each other. And heap on more associations, and more, and more, until the word is as communicative as a grunting noise.
You can use it for defense, too. Get yourself in a situation where your political organization, your nation, your religion and your race all use the same label, and no one will ever be able to criticize you because you can use rhetoric to twist your critics words and make them sound like an idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
When did anarchists take over Europe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
Real anarchism at its core is about the recognition of the basic rights, ie the right to self ownership of one's own body, and the descendent right to property. All other rights spring from those two rights.
These so called "anarchists" recognize no rights, and as such have debased themselves to the level of wild animals. I can't put into words the depth of my contempt for such "people".
I would suggest you read "The Conquest of Bread" for a different perspective on what anarchy means. It's available on Project Gutenberg for free
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23428
When the anarchists took over in Europe, they continued to work the factories and maintain public services. They just administered their affairs through elections instead of property. It proved more efficient than its predecessors, but then the fascists kicked their ass because they didn't have the capacity to flow into a vertical heirarchy and gain the might that structure grants, then flow back into a flattened power structure once the threat was gone.
I spend a lot of time thinking about that flow, and how tyranny and destruction follow when it's interrupted, and how we might design political-economic structures to accomodate it better....
Anarchy doesn't really mean the elimination of rules or social order. It means direct democracy and the elimination of vertical hierarchy.
So nobody gets to observe you intrusively and in detail...except the one entity proven to be vastly the most harmful to human existence, as shown by actual historical evidence. Indeed, the vast bulk of history is this evidence itself.
Also as learned from history, nobody learns from history.
You're insane. And when I say that, I mean you've got a fundamental disconnect from reality.
If this "entity" was so harmful to human existence, evolution would have destroyed it and it's adherents long ago.
If you want to effect real change, you need to make things that are necessary but onerous obsolete, and that starts with acknowledging that the intrinsic value of those patterns you hate is so significant that it's been overcoming the objections of the unsophisticated since before you hit the scene. If you can't see the merit of what you're trying to replace, you'll never succeed in creating a replacement.
Cultures whose sense of outrage leads them to recoil from paying costs that are necessary quickly become extinct. Then, a hundred years later, when all traces of their failed efforts are erased, it's touted as "novel" and "progress".
Somebody is off their medication today. Not that I think you're 100% wrong, but I think reality is probably a lot more mundane, greedy, and incompetent than you think. Your version reads like a comic book villain out to control the world
Plus, he forgot the part about giving the girls birth control and the boys porn and video games.
Why would anyone pay to be lied to
Because the truth is unpleasant. As cliche as the saying goes, it is true: People can't handle the truth.
It's true. Sometimes I think they're going to come after me with pitchforks.