Good lord, no. You "expect" as in anticipate, not require, your date to "put out" because that is frequently the end result of a romantic evening with someone you've been romantically involved with for some time, and the date in question qualifies and the mood is right. Anything else and you're just a pig. Which is, in a way, a social standard or stereotype, but a negative one, not OK.
Though I guess before I sound too high and mighty, I did laugh my ass off at the Family Guy spoof of the DeBeers silhouette ads with the implied bj and the tag line "Diamonds: She'll pretty much have to." Yes, we men buy things for women with the hope that it'll get us laid. But to "expect" in the sense you meant where it's equivalent to prostitution? No.
So you're saying capitalist theory was developed without considering the existence of governments? Well that would explain why it feels so disconnected from reality sometimes. That'd be like me developing a plan for getting to work that doesn't account for terrain or solid objects in my way.
The idea sounds excellent in principle, but how do you tell a true open source developer apart from a poser looking to abuse this program?
Simple. Yank on their beard. If the beard pulls off, they are a poser. If only a few hairs pull out, and your hand comes away coated in grease and food particles, then they're legit.
So yeah, the article is blocked by work's web proxy under the category "filesharing / p2p".
The summary says he went and tried to 'pirate' his own album.
Is it safe to assume that this was just him trying to see how exactly the evil pirates are stealing his music, and that this doesn't represent any change in his position or the acquisition of some kind of clue?
I remain unconvinced, given that the direction was always erratic, and that behavioral psychology dictates a critter will stop doing something (i.e., going somewhere) if there is no reward (i.e., it's still stuck in the same ball with the same plastic, so any place on the outside is much the same).
"Erratic" describes hamster movement outside of a ball, and if psychology dictates that the hamster will stop, then why does it start again?
Unless you're suggesting it's going places to admire the view?;)
Are you suggesting rodents don't display curiosity?
When my friend takes his hamster out of its cage and puts it in the ball, and the hamster then roams around the room for a while looking into nooks and corners and then after a while makes a bee-line back for its cage which is the sign to its owner to take it out of the ball and put it back in the cage where the water is, that seems like purpose to me.
If you choose not to view it that way, of course nobody can prove what the hamster is thinking.
The theory that was used to reject the observations was the same one being tested. That's circular. God forbid anyone actually inject reality into that feedback loop of the purely theoretical.
Yes, except that same theory was the only thing that would have suggested that he did find a gravity wave. When you're dealing with this kind of fringe physics, where the things you're trying to measure are minute, poorly understood, and largely detectable only through inference, there's often a circular relationship between the theory and the experiment designed to test the theory. When the fundamental design of your experiment depends upon the calculations in the theory being correct, and then you get a result outside the bounds of what the theory allows, then what exactly can you say other than "null result"?
I mean, if his data was by itself compelling enough to be convincing evidence of a gravity wave, then he could have convinced others that this was the case. You can talk about "orthodoxy" all you want, fact is that physicists and astronomers regularly publish results that essentially say "this outcome does not match existing theory and our theory is probably wrong". We see it on slashdot itself on occasion. But the fact is that getting convincing evidence of a gravity wave is tough and nobody else could repeat his experiment or try to increase the accuracy. So without at least being able to say that the result fell within predicted results, what is to say that this was really a gravity wave and not a passing train or road construction or anything else, except assertion?
After all, is it not the fact that our newly updated theory (a very mercurial orthodoxy this is) says that his results were within the expected range that has caused you to look back and say that he was ignored due to orthodoxy? If it weren't for the new theory, there'd still be no reason to think he was right. Even if he was right!
So I guess my point is, he may have gotten a bum rap and been ignored, but it also isn't obvious that this implies that had he not been ignored, gravity waves would have been confirmed by his experiment at the time he conducted it.
I keep trying to find this person for whom my crap is their treasure, but so far everyone I show it too agrees that it's crap. I hope I find them soon, or I'm going to have to start flushing this potential treasure, which just seems like a waste.
Someone once told me I have a poor grasp of metaphor, but I'm not sure what they meant.
Isn't that like using gravity to explain the effect of gravity?
Sure, but it's just an analogy. It's not supposed to explain why masses warp space-time, only to show how a mass causing space-time to warp gives rise to effect we call gravity. In the analogy, the curvature of the space-time sheet is caused by gravity pulling downward on a ball to create the curve. In the reality the analogy is supposed to represent, the curvature of space-time is gravity. The analogy just gives you an easy way to ignore the "why" that theory can't answer, so you can focus on understanding the effect.
If it makes you feel better, you can just ignore the gravity-pulling-the-balls-down part of the analogy, and replace it with a simple assumption that a ball on the sheet causes the sheet to bend, and that other balls tend to move towards "low" spots in the sheet, with no explanation for why this happens.
Has anyone proven that they don't just run to ESCAPE the ball, with no thought about what's outside the ball except "freedom"?
I don't know about "proven", but watch a hamster in a hamster ball some time. Sure at first they're probably just trying to get out of the ball and randomly bumping into things. But at some point it becomes pretty obvious that they're trying to get to specific places by running in the ball, which obviously takes a different kind of coordination to do than running on the floor, so they at least know that it's the ball that's getting them there. Sure, maybe they're thinking "If I can just get there maybe I can escape this thing", but as far as following a path with a sense of purpose, yes definitely. Sometimes with a hamster who is left in their ball most of the time, it almost seems like the ball becomes an extension of themselves much like our cars become an extension of ourselves when we drive.
Well since the majority of that "other stuff" is dust or ice crystals, some being maybe as large as a few meters, and the rings themselves are only about 10m thick, then yeah something a third of a mile wide stands out pretty significantly. They're sometimes called "moonlets" to denote the fact that they are, by moon standards, pretty small.
I am not buying that it is too expensive. What about the costs a voter incurs to miss work to go vote? What about the gas used to drive the voter to the voting booth? It is all the same. (Obviously missed work time is much less money than the cost of a state-issued photo ID card, even at minimum-wage rates)...
It is more or less the same, which is why I personally believe that election day should be a national holiday. Of course lots of people are still required to work on national holidays, so this only helps so much. I think there are at least laws that say you can't be fired for taking time off to vote, which is something but not really enough.
However, the "less" part of "more or less the same" is that those are externalities/opportunity costs of voting, not a direct cost imposed by the government. The whole point is that even the vagrant who lives under the highway overpass and is too surly to make any money panhandling has the right to vote, and the government creating a financial barrier to voting violates that right.
If they are random then why do they predict economic change with 100% accuracy?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*gasp gasp*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*pant pant*
HAHHAHAHA, oh God that's rich. Seriously, you meant that? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wipes tears from eyes*
No other reaction is possible for such a statement. Is this a delayed posting from 2007? Not that it wouldn't be equally laughable, but at least it was conceivable to maintain the self-delusion that it isn't. Today? You're saying the economy is 100% predictable, and you're saying this today.
Yeah, and by "made to make loans to anyone based on skin color", you of course meant "made to stop discriminating in loans based on skin color". They were never required to make loans to unqualified lenders. They were never required to lower their standards with regards to minorities. They were required to stop "red-lining" entire neighborhoods and refusing to loan to anyone in them, regardless of how qualified.
You can blame this on the Democrats and poor people all you want. Fact is, responsible banks obeyed the law and made loans to qualified people in formerly red-lined areas, and made money off this. My bank was subject to the law. They're doing just fine. Because they were never required to loan to just anyone.
Irresponsible lenders, taking advantage of deregulation, decided to start loaning to anybody -- poor, middle class, or whatever -- without even bothering to check if the information given was true, because they were just going to roll the loan up into a security and re-sell it. So they didn't care. That's what caused the problem. Not an anti-discrimination law.
P.S. Coal sucks. It generates most of our energy, and we should change this. When we succeed, coal will go bankrupt. This is a good thing. Until then it's just a necessary evil.
I'm tired of people dragging out this three-year-old argument. It's simply not true.
Three year old argument? The PS3 was launched in late Nov, 2006, so it's only been out a little over 2 years...
Oh, right. This is a console flame war. Of course XBox fanboys were arguing that the 360 had more games than the PS3 a year before the PS3 actually came out. I guess it would have even been technically true at the time.
Oh yeah. Because the recession hasn't hit any high-tech or scientific areas at all.
Meanwhile, the stimulus also includes massive public works projects like helping to make sure our aging bridges don't collapse and kill people like the one in the Twin Cities. Perfect for all those laid-off construction workers, and perfect for making sure that if we come out of this recession (or even if we don't) we aren't living in a country with dangerously unmaintained infrastructure.
Comparatively, this is a tiny portion of the bill. I'd say roughly in proportion to the degree that it is a problem. But hey, actually evaluating which treatments are both effective and cost effective can't possibly help the economy, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord, no. You "expect" as in anticipate, not require, your date to "put out" because that is frequently the end result of a romantic evening with someone you've been romantically involved with for some time, and the date in question qualifies and the mood is right. Anything else and you're just a pig. Which is, in a way, a social standard or stereotype, but a negative one, not OK.
Though I guess before I sound too high and mighty, I did laugh my ass off at the Family Guy spoof of the DeBeers silhouette ads with the implied bj and the tag line "Diamonds: She'll pretty much have to." Yes, we men buy things for women with the hope that it'll get us laid. But to "expect" in the sense you meant where it's equivalent to prostitution? No.
It's also one of the oldest jokes on /., so I can't really take credit, except maybe for good taste in cliches. :)
Please stop claiming First Amendment rights when the government is not involved.
No, and I'm not going to stop until the government passes a law saying I can't. :P
So you're saying capitalist theory was developed without considering the existence of governments? Well that would explain why it feels so disconnected from reality sometimes. That'd be like me developing a plan for getting to work that doesn't account for terrain or solid objects in my way.
The idea sounds excellent in principle, but how do you tell a true open source developer apart from a poser looking to abuse this program?
Simple. Yank on their beard. If the beard pulls off, they are a poser. If only a few hairs pull out, and your hand comes away coated in grease and food particles, then they're legit.
What?
Mis-post I would assume?
So yeah, the article is blocked by work's web proxy under the category "filesharing / p2p".
The summary says he went and tried to 'pirate' his own album.
Is it safe to assume that this was just him trying to see how exactly the evil pirates are stealing his music, and that this doesn't represent any change in his position or the acquisition of some kind of clue?
Fixed that for you ;)
Ha, you got me there. That's mud in my eye. Wait that's not mud...
And I was talking about literal excrement, because I'm a silly person.
I remain unconvinced, given that the direction was always erratic, and that behavioral psychology dictates a critter will stop doing something (i.e., going somewhere) if there is no reward (i.e., it's still stuck in the same ball with the same plastic, so any place on the outside is much the same).
"Erratic" describes hamster movement outside of a ball, and if psychology dictates that the hamster will stop, then why does it start again?
Unless you're suggesting it's going places to admire the view? ;)
Are you suggesting rodents don't display curiosity?
When my friend takes his hamster out of its cage and puts it in the ball, and the hamster then roams around the room for a while looking into nooks and corners and then after a while makes a bee-line back for its cage which is the sign to its owner to take it out of the ball and put it back in the cage where the water is, that seems like purpose to me.
If you choose not to view it that way, of course nobody can prove what the hamster is thinking.
The theory that was used to reject the observations was the same one being tested. That's circular. God forbid anyone actually inject reality into that feedback loop of the purely theoretical.
Yes, except that same theory was the only thing that would have suggested that he did find a gravity wave. When you're dealing with this kind of fringe physics, where the things you're trying to measure are minute, poorly understood, and largely detectable only through inference, there's often a circular relationship between the theory and the experiment designed to test the theory. When the fundamental design of your experiment depends upon the calculations in the theory being correct, and then you get a result outside the bounds of what the theory allows, then what exactly can you say other than "null result"?
I mean, if his data was by itself compelling enough to be convincing evidence of a gravity wave, then he could have convinced others that this was the case. You can talk about "orthodoxy" all you want, fact is that physicists and astronomers regularly publish results that essentially say "this outcome does not match existing theory and our theory is probably wrong". We see it on slashdot itself on occasion. But the fact is that getting convincing evidence of a gravity wave is tough and nobody else could repeat his experiment or try to increase the accuracy. So without at least being able to say that the result fell within predicted results, what is to say that this was really a gravity wave and not a passing train or road construction or anything else, except assertion?
After all, is it not the fact that our newly updated theory (a very mercurial orthodoxy this is) says that his results were within the expected range that has caused you to look back and say that he was ignored due to orthodoxy? If it weren't for the new theory, there'd still be no reason to think he was right. Even if he was right!
So I guess my point is, he may have gotten a bum rap and been ignored, but it also isn't obvious that this implies that had he not been ignored, gravity waves would have been confirmed by his experiment at the time he conducted it.
I keep trying to find this person for whom my crap is their treasure, but so far everyone I show it too agrees that it's crap. I hope I find them soon, or I'm going to have to start flushing this potential treasure, which just seems like a waste.
Someone once told me I have a poor grasp of metaphor, but I'm not sure what they meant.
Isn't that like using gravity to explain the effect of gravity?
Sure, but it's just an analogy. It's not supposed to explain why masses warp space-time, only to show how a mass causing space-time to warp gives rise to effect we call gravity. In the analogy, the curvature of the space-time sheet is caused by gravity pulling downward on a ball to create the curve. In the reality the analogy is supposed to represent, the curvature of space-time is gravity. The analogy just gives you an easy way to ignore the "why" that theory can't answer, so you can focus on understanding the effect.
If it makes you feel better, you can just ignore the gravity-pulling-the-balls-down part of the analogy, and replace it with a simple assumption that a ball on the sheet causes the sheet to bend, and that other balls tend to move towards "low" spots in the sheet, with no explanation for why this happens.
Has anyone proven that they don't just run to ESCAPE the ball, with no thought about what's outside the ball except "freedom"?
I don't know about "proven", but watch a hamster in a hamster ball some time. Sure at first they're probably just trying to get out of the ball and randomly bumping into things. But at some point it becomes pretty obvious that they're trying to get to specific places by running in the ball, which obviously takes a different kind of coordination to do than running on the floor, so they at least know that it's the ball that's getting them there. Sure, maybe they're thinking "If I can just get there maybe I can escape this thing", but as far as following a path with a sense of purpose, yes definitely. Sometimes with a hamster who is left in their ball most of the time, it almost seems like the ball becomes an extension of themselves much like our cars become an extension of ourselves when we drive.
Well since the majority of that "other stuff" is dust or ice crystals, some being maybe as large as a few meters, and the rings themselves are only about 10m thick, then yeah something a third of a mile wide stands out pretty significantly. They're sometimes called "moonlets" to denote the fact that they are, by moon standards, pretty small.
Are you saying my immigrant coworkers who aren't planning on leaving are stupid? That seems both rash and mean. You take it back!
Really, that saying was a saying? The old saying was "Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM."
MS replaced IBM in the saying in the 90s, in what I am certain was a campaign by MS sales agents.
I am not buying that it is too expensive. What about the costs a voter incurs to miss work to go vote? What about the gas used to drive the voter to the voting booth? It is all the same. (Obviously missed work time is much less money than the cost of a state-issued photo ID card, even at minimum-wage rates)...
It is more or less the same, which is why I personally believe that election day should be a national holiday. Of course lots of people are still required to work on national holidays, so this only helps so much. I think there are at least laws that say you can't be fired for taking time off to vote, which is something but not really enough.
However, the "less" part of "more or less the same" is that those are externalities/opportunity costs of voting, not a direct cost imposed by the government. The whole point is that even the vagrant who lives under the highway overpass and is too surly to make any money panhandling has the right to vote, and the government creating a financial barrier to voting violates that right.
If they are random then why do they predict economic change with 100% accuracy?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*gasp gasp*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*pant pant*
HAHHAHAHA, oh God that's rich. Seriously, you meant that? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wipes tears from eyes*
No other reaction is possible for such a statement. Is this a delayed posting from 2007? Not that it wouldn't be equally laughable, but at least it was conceivable to maintain the self-delusion that it isn't. Today? You're saying the economy is 100% predictable, and you're saying this today.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, and by "made to make loans to anyone based on skin color", you of course meant "made to stop discriminating in loans based on skin color". They were never required to make loans to unqualified lenders. They were never required to lower their standards with regards to minorities. They were required to stop "red-lining" entire neighborhoods and refusing to loan to anyone in them, regardless of how qualified.
You can blame this on the Democrats and poor people all you want. Fact is, responsible banks obeyed the law and made loans to qualified people in formerly red-lined areas, and made money off this. My bank was subject to the law. They're doing just fine. Because they were never required to loan to just anyone.
Irresponsible lenders, taking advantage of deregulation, decided to start loaning to anybody -- poor, middle class, or whatever -- without even bothering to check if the information given was true, because they were just going to roll the loan up into a security and re-sell it. So they didn't care. That's what caused the problem. Not an anti-discrimination law.
P.S. Coal sucks. It generates most of our energy, and we should change this. When we succeed, coal will go bankrupt. This is a good thing. Until then it's just a necessary evil.
I'm tired of people dragging out this three-year-old argument. It's simply not true.
Three year old argument? The PS3 was launched in late Nov, 2006, so it's only been out a little over 2 years...
Oh, right. This is a console flame war. Of course XBox fanboys were arguing that the 360 had more games than the PS3 a year before the PS3 actually came out. I guess it would have even been technically true at the time.
Carry on. :)
p.s.: get back to work, fleshy servitor, or we'll reassign you to pave our Lunar Base landing pads!
Geeze. So on the plus side, robots don't experience fear, doubt, or vanity. On the minus side, they are kinda dicks.
I'm just thinking, thank God it isn't the "rule of fist".
Oh yeah. Because the recession hasn't hit any high-tech or scientific areas at all.
Meanwhile, the stimulus also includes massive public works projects like helping to make sure our aging bridges don't collapse and kill people like the one in the Twin Cities. Perfect for all those laid-off construction workers, and perfect for making sure that if we come out of this recession (or even if we don't) we aren't living in a country with dangerously unmaintained infrastructure.
Comparatively, this is a tiny portion of the bill. I'd say roughly in proportion to the degree that it is a problem. But hey, actually evaluating which treatments are both effective and cost effective can't possibly help the economy, right?