"Cheating" is just a matter of semantics, though. Is a hacker "cheating" when he or she guesses your password? Is the chess master "cheating" when he uses a memorized set of unbeatable moves? Were the Allies "cheating" when they cracked the Enigma machine, or when they used Navajo code-talkers? Etc, etc, etc.
And, just to ice that cake, everyone generally does play by those 'cheaters win' rules. You can break every single rule that is not enforced, and everyone but everyone knows that. Like people that drive five or ten miles over the speed limit. They're cheating. They're winning by getting to their destination just a tad earlier.
Sorry to break it to you, but we're already there and the world didn't end.
You make the statement that "people are inherently assholes" without any evidence.
...
Most people are good because it feels good to be good.
So my statement needs evidence, but yours does not. That is the very essence of religion, my friend. This is totally cool, as I endeavor to respect just about anyone's spiritual beliefs.
Your assertion, that we need religion to be good, is just plain false.
That is rather false, isn't it. Of course it isn't quite what I said, so I guess that's okay. What I said was that religion, properly practiced, usually requires us to be good. Any ordered system of behavior could well do the same thing. In that Buddha was not a god, yet Buddhism is a religion, so could any structure regarding the way we live our lives be built to accomplish the same ends. It would, though, become a religion since it deals with moral concepts like right and wrong.
Anyway, you seem to have pretty clearly demonstrated both the rigor of your thought and your willingness to ponder such things, which was what I was after. Thank you and have a great day.
Even if that were true, would it be such a bad thing? Outside of morality there is no good and no evil. But people are inherently assholes. Even if there is nothing more to religion than "don't be such an asshole", isn't THAT ALONE enough to warrant that it should be practiced?
I'm genuinely wondering why a person such as yourself would make such a Santa Claus statement in this thread. What's the alternative? "We all just act like adults without believing that our actions have consequences in another life"? Did you read TFA? Because it speaks to this notion. If life doesn't matter, and our actions within it do not matter, then what kind of a world would this become?
Say what you will about the many, many, many negatives of religion, but I do think you'll have to stipulate that most if not all religions do expect one to be less of an asshole doing whatever he or she feels like in that particular moment.
Please do illustrate the other point of view. I'm earnestly curious.
Pose it this way, does anyone feel neutral about unions? Because I do think that the phrase 'everyone hats unions' is obviously not intended to include those benefiting from unions. Clearly. Therefore, I think the statement is likely something like 'everyone not already pro-union hates unions'. Which really only means they aren't very popular, likely for perceptions that have already been tossed out.
spun is absolutely not mindless. That's ad hominem and doesn't belong in a discussion.
He's wrong about the UAW, as far as I can tell, but certainly not mindless.
I can add that people from the St Louis area have been telling me stories of this sort since the nineties, so I doubt that all the distaste is a 'right now, by the enemy' thing.
It is my understanding that 'saying no' would have resulted in a deeper financial loss due to fees or some such. Just because they opted to pay it out doesn't make it easy to pay. Much like my credit card payments, actually. I can't afford much else, ergo hardship, but if I didn't find some way to pay them, it would hurt a hell of a lot worse.
While I do see the value for 'we can do anything' thinking within an organization, that's not even remotely closely to what we're discussing. We're not asking ourselves 'please describe a Facebook wet dream', but rather 'how much is this organization worth' - the latter assumes we're talking about both the real world AND how that world will readily be. Not how it might be eventually someday. How it will readily be, as in by the time you might want to see some of your money back.
Sony's formula is designed assuming that 'N' is a randomly-selected number which is constantly changing. In practice, it is always the same number. This is how they were cracked.
Watch the presentation, it's pretty cool.
Anyway, that kind of assumption, even when present in the design, is dangerous.
Yup and start seeding your data with bogus stuff that will end up costing the corporations using it draw the wrong conclusions. Really simple... same goes with all market research... game them... game them hard.
You'd have to game them on the aggregate with the participation of your peers. Or did you really think that they've never considered the concept of a 'filter'?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, that's unnerving. Who are you and PraiseBob (above you) quoting, exactly? You said the exact same thing in very much the same order...
"Cheating" is just a matter of semantics, though. Is a hacker "cheating" when he or she guesses your password? Is the chess master "cheating" when he uses a memorized set of unbeatable moves? Were the Allies "cheating" when they cracked the Enigma machine, or when they used Navajo code-talkers? Etc, etc, etc.
And, just to ice that cake, everyone generally does play by those 'cheaters win' rules. You can break every single rule that is not enforced, and everyone but everyone knows that. Like people that drive five or ten miles over the speed limit. They're cheating. They're winning by getting to their destination just a tad earlier.
Sorry to break it to you, but we're already there and the world didn't end.
(Assistant astrophysics officer, but yeah...)
You make the statement that "people are inherently assholes" without any evidence.
...
Most people are good because it feels good to be good.
So my statement needs evidence, but yours does not. That is the very essence of religion, my friend. This is totally cool, as I endeavor to respect just about anyone's spiritual beliefs.
Your assertion, that we need religion to be good, is just plain false.
That is rather false, isn't it. Of course it isn't quite what I said, so I guess that's okay. What I said was that religion, properly practiced, usually requires us to be good. Any ordered system of behavior could well do the same thing. In that Buddha was not a god, yet Buddhism is a religion, so could any structure regarding the way we live our lives be built to accomplish the same ends. It would, though, become a religion since it deals with moral concepts like right and wrong.
Anyway, you seem to have pretty clearly demonstrated both the rigor of your thought and your willingness to ponder such things, which was what I was after. Thank you and have a great day.
Even if that were true, would it be such a bad thing? Outside of morality there is no good and no evil. But people are inherently assholes. Even if there is nothing more to religion than "don't be such an asshole", isn't THAT ALONE enough to warrant that it should be practiced?
I'm genuinely wondering why a person such as yourself would make such a Santa Claus statement in this thread. What's the alternative? "We all just act like adults without believing that our actions have consequences in another life"? Did you read TFA? Because it speaks to this notion. If life doesn't matter, and our actions within it do not matter, then what kind of a world would this become?
Say what you will about the many, many, many negatives of religion, but I do think you'll have to stipulate that most if not all religions do expect one to be less of an asshole doing whatever he or she feels like in that particular moment.
Please do illustrate the other point of view. I'm earnestly curious.
But they're so delicious! Why would we risk the world's most epic source of food?
I've gone where that argument is going. "Economic value of robbery is unrelated to risk of misuse." That's the argument. Just that.
Those figures do look reasonable to me.
Pose it this way, does anyone feel neutral about unions? Because I do think that the phrase 'everyone hats unions' is obviously not intended to include those benefiting from unions. Clearly. Therefore, I think the statement is likely something like 'everyone not already pro-union hates unions'. Which really only means they aren't very popular, likely for perceptions that have already been tossed out.
spun is absolutely not mindless. That's ad hominem and doesn't belong in a discussion.
He's wrong about the UAW, as far as I can tell, but certainly not mindless.
I can add that people from the St Louis area have been telling me stories of this sort since the nineties, so I doubt that all the distaste is a 'right now, by the enemy' thing.
The other non-union car makers? Why?
It is my understanding that 'saying no' would have resulted in a deeper financial loss due to fees or some such. Just because they opted to pay it out doesn't make it easy to pay. Much like my credit card payments, actually. I can't afford much else, ergo hardship, but if I didn't find some way to pay them, it would hurt a hell of a lot worse.
Just because they could make more money, doesn't mean they necessarily would choose to do so. Some people are addicted to thrills, for example.
I knew she was hard to penetrate, but FOURTEEN MILLION YEARS!?!
What an icy bitch!
Earlier reports had them buying drinks for the lake and complimenting it's clarity.
While I do see the value for 'we can do anything' thinking within an organization, that's not even remotely closely to what we're discussing. We're not asking ourselves 'please describe a Facebook wet dream', but rather 'how much is this organization worth' - the latter assumes we're talking about both the real world AND how that world will readily be. Not how it might be eventually someday. How it will readily be, as in by the time you might want to see some of your money back.
Sony's formula is designed assuming that 'N' is a randomly-selected number which is constantly changing. In practice, it is always the same number. This is how they were cracked.
Watch the presentation, it's pretty cool.
Anyway, that kind of assumption, even when present in the design, is dangerous.
I suppose I'm operating under the assumption that Facebook's success or failure will be concrete inside a single decade.
How many internet companies from the 80's are still alive today? Not many.
Even were it to not stop nor reverse, '6.5 billion more' is still idiotic.
If it's random and software generated? 100%.
Tell that to Sony.
And? The third world suddenly has internet-connected phones now?
Setting a goal of growing so large the entire world could have a profile is IDIOTIC for a number of reasons:
A) Much of the world doesn't have a computer
B) ...and if they did have one, they wouldn't have internet
C) ...and if they had internet, their culture wouldn't necessarily align with Facebook
D) ...and even if they did want to be on it, their government might actively prohibit it ...and so on.
I'm just trying to bring you guys back down to reality.
He's posting on /. so I think your point is dead.
Says the guy posting on slashdot.
You have forty Facebooks but not even one slashdot account?
How weird is that?
Yup and start seeding your data with bogus stuff that will end up costing the corporations using it draw the wrong conclusions. Really simple... same goes with all market research... game them... game them hard.
You'd have to game them on the aggregate with the participation of your peers. Or did you really think that they've never considered the concept of a 'filter'?