You forget, the vast majority of slashdotters are godless people who don't want thinking minds - they only want agreement with their personal atheism. I am an atheist. I think "godless" is a complement. Faith (by definition) means taking as true that which has not been empirically shown. So (again by definition) faith suspends reason. So reason ends where faith begins. So again, "godless" is a description I would wear as badge of honor. Having said that, I insist that skepticism is a necessary part of empirical examination. So any system of schooling that teaches how to critically evaluate facts rather than accept their popular interpretations is alright with me.
You must be new here. If I had a penny for everytime an AC left this comment... I might be able to make a phone call.
The question was, of course, rhetorical and meant to point out that the position adopted out of what may appear to be a political expediency was in fact better than the position proposed by the "reasonable" people. I could start shilling for the market place (of opinions) at work here producing better results than an opinion of experts, but someone without enough imagination and even less patience would think it offtopic.
This is actually a good thing. A good theory stands up to scrutiny. There is not such thing as "ridiculous" challenge. Any challenge which does not deny rules of logic or observed facts has merit. If students are instilled with an extra degree of scepticism, I'd say, "good for them." Dogmatic teaching of scince as facts creates nothing but fudder for pop-culture -- it does not produce thinking minds.
It could be just the media frenzy making a bigger deal of isolated incidents than the real deal is, but it seems like the group is both paranoid and vindictive. I am more worried about them trying to use this as an opportunity to supress criticism than to use it to supress second hand resales. Although why one shouldn't be able to resell one's physical property in a free contry is beyond me.
I would spar point, counter-point with someone who sticks to the argument itself. But you turn half of your points into ad hominems and I don't feel like repeating my arguments just to show that what you attribute to me is in direct contradiction to what I actually stated. I am done for now. Maybe later I'll be in a mood to actually show you why you did what I just accused you of. Probably not. Either way, I assert that you have not made your case. Your conclusions seem to be based on your opinion of my personality. They are not based on what I said. Feel free to claim an iron in that. But since you know nothing about me, you would not be justified in claiming that you were relying on stereotypes.
Plate is my friend. But the truth is a dearer friend, yet. I suppose that if I try to be clever, I shouldn't do it in a rush. Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but the truth is a dearer friend, yet.
It's factually incorrect when you say that preventing abstraction decreases the quantity of information.
If you mean a rhetorical "you", then we agree. Preventing abstraction does not descrease the quantity of information. If you attribute the statement to me, then, well, I said nothing of the kind. I said it prevents information from being discovered. I didn't say that it prevents information of existing. I won't beat the dead horse with a proverbial tree falling in a forrest.
Abstraction is a process whereby you eliminate information that is [hopefully] irrelevant for a given purpose.
That's correct, albeit irrelevant. I was using "abstraction" as a noun -- not a verb. The noun "abstraction" referrs to a view on a subject (more correctly a criterion of subjects) that picks only certain details of the said subjects. The details which are not picked for consideration are not part of the abstraction. An abstraction is only fitting or not fitting the subject. It cannot be "incorrect". It is not fitting the subject if it ascribes to it attributes which the subject does not posses. It is not incorrect if it omitts some details which the subject does posses. In the latter case it might be argued to be incomplete, but it might be useful for consideration nontheless as it might reveal properties of the subject that are meaningful (see forgetful functor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetful_functor).
It is incorrect when you firstly make an unsupported assumption that stereotypes have validity
It would be incorrect. I made no such assumption. As a matter of fact, I stated that the opposite can be the case for any particular individual:
Not everyone fits the stereotype
As for this:
proceed from there to further assume that there is [i]sufficient[/i] correlation with a stereotype
It is gobbly-goo and will should not be addressed. But I will address it, anyway. Correlation is only meaningful for a statistically meaningful sample. There cannot be "sufficient correlation" for an individual when discussing properties of a large sample. Notice that I spoke of "correct" stereotypes. That is, the stereotypes which are, in fact, supported by a correlation between the property of having a specific property (or "feature" so that this sentence would not be repetitive) and having some other feature (ie, belonging to some group).
as opposed to being equipped to deal with those that do not fit that stereotype
That's irrelavant again. Using correlation as a guide to the first direction of discovery is not only viable, but it is also a recommended course of action. Of course, opinion must be adjusted as soon as data for a particular sample does not support the assumption that a certain feature is present.
And it is thirdly incorrect when you conclude that it is okay to trample on the well-being of people in your measures to deal with your stereotypes.
I advocated no such action in public sphere. Of course, what people do on their private property is their business (yes, stores and malls are private property). If people start with stereotypes which are supported by the data and change their mind when individuals prove not to fit those stereotypes, they will achieve more accurate discovery results. So who are you or I to tell them not to do so?
As regards your unquestioning assumption that your stereotypes are valid
This is a repeated accusation and it is again untrue. Since it is repeated, I'll assume the accusation is meant to be inflamatory. I said that there are stereotypes which are true. Those are the ones supported by a near-one correlation between belonging to a group and having a certain attribute. I never said all
I am saying (among other things) that when a business advertises a "guarantee", they have to stand by it. And, yes, they are responsible for whatever suffering they cause from intentional or unintentional breaking of agreements. "It's not my fault" is not an excuse in business. A promise must be fulfilled or the party to whom it was made must be compensated for the losses that resulted from its nonfullfilment.
I'm going to turn that around and make what I feel is the more critical point. What magically makes someone less than 25 not responsible? "Nothing" is the answer, so what right does anybody have to inflict discomfort on kids en masse just because of their own prejudice? While it is true that being under 25 does not make any ONE (space intentional) not responsible, the chances of a person being not responsible is positively correlated with under 25. Of course, judgement based on a correlation is, by definition, an accurate stereotype. Not everyone fits the stereotype, but an accurate streotype is a good "ball park" estimate of behavior. If you want to prove that you don't fill any particular stereotype, you don't have to do anything, however. Just be yourself. People do make impressions after the first one. But what is commonly suggested (paying no attention to any stereotypes) is actually inefficient. It disallows abstractions when describing people and by the virtue of that disallows a good deal of information which is true from being discoverable.
I'd be curious if he can name a job which compensates for a lifetime the work done over a few teenage years? Is he not presuming with this that Europe has to re-establish a nobility class? This time around, derived from the "artists" that have influenced culture? This seems like a deliberate step away from egalitarianism. Is that what Europe really intends to do? Why is no one asking this question in public?
Frustrating someone for 3 months and promising them that they'll get their stuff back "any minute now" should cost what you take from that person -- their peace of mind for that time. Oh, and that judge didn't sue for the cost of the pants. He sued because the store provided lousy service and yet kept lying about it by keeping "satisfaction guaranteed" sign on the storefront. The material things in question are not the only part of the cost. Taking away from people the time of their lives is the biggest cost. And those who do it and then lie about it on such a massive scale (as the store in question) should pay for it. Lawsuits are supposed to compensate for the damages suffered -- not just the material things lost. To say that only the material things can cost money is to say that human beings and time of their lives is worthless.
Rather than the number of infringement per capita it would be interesting to see the correlation between the number of infringiments per capita and the bandwidth available to an end-user per capita. I mean, so what if US has less infringement than Canada? Maybe that's just because US residents have less of a chance to infringe due to not having broadband access.
Every single soldier I know would be appalled at the very idea of attacking civilians. Every single one of them may want to think that they are the kind of person who would. History proves them wrong.
Disclaimer: I am Swiss and I work for a Swiss bank. Great. Then you might be in a position to answer some questions that are (as far as I am concerned) more interesting than the original article itself. First, were you talking about retail banks (like the ones where people would deposit their paychecks and hold their checking accounts with which they can pay their monthly bills) or investment banks? Do you happen to know why and how the rumor of Swiss banks being anonymous started? Were they previously anonymous and abandoned the practice sometime within the past 20 years? You have to admit this "understanding" is quite common. So I am really curious where it comes from if it has no basis in fact.
You can be compelled to give up your keys in the UK; but encryption is not illegal. It's my understanding that you can be compelled to give up keys without probable cause. Which means at the whim of the government. Effectively that makes encryption illegal.
So you can be forced to open your mail, but they can't force you to open your SSL communication if they have recorded the encrypted traffic, because there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Are you sure that "there is nothing you can do about it" is a viable defense? Because it can easily be the case that if there is nothing you can do about it, then there is no way you can comply with the law.... again, making encryption illegal.
Last time I was in Switzerland (about 3 years ago) the guard at the airport checked my (American) passport and just let me go. No stamp -- nothing. So effectively, there was no record of my ever visiting the country. Yes, I know the plane tickets and such, but those who are really interested and invested in preserving their real-world anonymity would probably reserve plane tickets and pass border guards with different passports. The point of an anonymous account is not so much that its content cannot be subpoened with a court order, but rather it is that its existance is next to impossible to establish. Any biometric passports would throw that out the window. It might be just an old wives' tale, but it seems to be that anonymous banking is a rather large part of Swiss economy. So I don't think they would implement any rules that might undermine it.
Fair enough. Although this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement does state that they are set to implement it by Nov 2008. I don't believe the article was clear enough as to what Switzerland will do. I find it laughable that Poland would demand anyone's fingerprints, but my notions of Poland are probably outdated by about 15 years.
Encryption is illegal in Britain. That is you must surrender your keys upon request by the government. Any notions you may have about Britain not being a police state are wrong.
Not exactly European Union. It says Schengen. That includes Switzerland. So Switzerland with all of its anonymous banking is going to require biometric data for people leaving and coming to the country? Why do I not think this will happen?
What happened to American business spirit? At the same time as Russia got captured by the business spirit, USA has gotten captured by the socialist spirit. Just look at the latest elections. The sentiment of slashdotters (most of whom are Americans) is as much a proof of that as the latest primary elections.
The book was first published in 1957. She worked on it for 7 years. As for the claim of nuclear power being Galt's engine of the real world, I'd say it's a stretch. Having said, the perspective on the book that you point out is actually new to me. So thanks. Certainly examples can be easily constructed that show how it applies in the world of the Internet. I guess what struck me about the rain drops is the visual itself. Both Galt's engine and the the raindrops seem to draw on energy from essentially thin air. Of course, the analogy stops there.
Ok, well, in this the authorization for copyright laws comes from the recognizing the need to promote science and arts. Government documents are not even with an earshot of that standard.
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually a good thing. A good theory stands up to scrutiny. There is not such thing as "ridiculous" challenge. Any challenge which does not deny rules of logic or observed facts has merit. If students are instilled with an extra degree of scepticism, I'd say, "good for them." Dogmatic teaching of scince as facts creates nothing but fudder for pop-culture -- it does not produce thinking minds.
It could be just the media frenzy making a bigger deal of isolated incidents than the real deal is, but it seems like the group is both paranoid and vindictive. I am more worried about them trying to use this as an opportunity to supress criticism than to use it to supress second hand resales. Although why one shouldn't be able to resell one's physical property in a free contry is beyond me.
I would spar point, counter-point with someone who sticks to the argument itself. But you turn half of your points into ad hominems and I don't feel like repeating my arguments just to show that what you attribute to me is in direct contradiction to what I actually stated. I am done for now. Maybe later I'll be in a mood to actually show you why you did what I just accused you of. Probably not. Either way, I assert that you have not made your case. Your conclusions seem to be based on your opinion of my personality. They are not based on what I said. Feel free to claim an iron in that. But since you know nothing about me, you would not be justified in claiming that you were relying on stereotypes.
That's crap in three ways.
Fighting words. Bring it on!
It's factually incorrect when you say that preventing abstraction decreases the quantity of information.
If you mean a rhetorical "you", then we agree. Preventing abstraction does not descrease the quantity of information. If you attribute the statement to me, then, well, I said nothing of the kind. I said it prevents information from being discovered. I didn't say that it prevents information of existing. I won't beat the dead horse with a proverbial tree falling in a forrest.
Abstraction is a process whereby you eliminate information that is [hopefully] irrelevant for a given purpose.
That's correct, albeit irrelevant. I was using "abstraction" as a noun -- not a verb. The noun "abstraction" referrs to a view on a subject (more correctly a criterion of subjects) that picks only certain details of the said subjects. The details which are not picked for consideration are not part of the abstraction. An abstraction is only fitting or not fitting the subject. It cannot be "incorrect". It is not fitting the subject if it ascribes to it attributes which the subject does not posses. It is not incorrect if it omitts some details which the subject does posses. In the latter case it might be argued to be incomplete, but it might be useful for consideration nontheless as it might reveal properties of the subject that are meaningful (see forgetful functor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetful_functor).
It is incorrect when you firstly make an unsupported assumption that stereotypes have validity
It would be incorrect. I made no such assumption. As a matter of fact, I stated that the opposite can be the case for any particular individual:
Not everyone fits the stereotype
As for this:
proceed from there to further assume that there is [i]sufficient[/i] correlation with a stereotype
It is gobbly-goo and will should not be addressed. But I will address it, anyway. Correlation is only meaningful for a statistically meaningful sample. There cannot be "sufficient correlation" for an individual when discussing properties of a large sample. Notice that I spoke of "correct" stereotypes. That is, the stereotypes which are, in fact, supported by a correlation between the property of having a specific property (or "feature" so that this sentence would not be repetitive) and having some other feature (ie, belonging to some group).
as opposed to being equipped to deal with those that do not fit that stereotype
That's irrelavant again. Using correlation as a guide to the first direction of discovery is not only viable, but it is also a recommended course of action. Of course, opinion must be adjusted as soon as data for a particular sample does not support the assumption that a certain feature is present.
And it is thirdly incorrect when you conclude that it is okay to trample on the well-being of people in your measures to deal with your stereotypes.
I advocated no such action in public sphere. Of course, what people do on their private property is their business (yes, stores and malls are private property). If people start with stereotypes which are supported by the data and change their mind when individuals prove not to fit those stereotypes, they will achieve more accurate discovery results. So who are you or I to tell them not to do so?
As regards your unquestioning assumption that your stereotypes are valid
This is a repeated accusation and it is again untrue. Since it is repeated, I'll assume the accusation is meant to be inflamatory. I said that there are stereotypes which are true. Those are the ones supported by a near-one correlation between belonging to a group and having a certain attribute. I never said all
I am saying (among other things) that when a business advertises a "guarantee", they have to stand by it. And, yes, they are responsible for whatever suffering they cause from intentional or unintentional breaking of agreements. "It's not my fault" is not an excuse in business. A promise must be fulfilled or the party to whom it was made must be compensated for the losses that resulted from its nonfullfilment.
I'd be curious if he can name a job which compensates for a lifetime the work done over a few teenage years? Is he not presuming with this that Europe has to re-establish a nobility class? This time around, derived from the "artists" that have influenced culture? This seems like a deliberate step away from egalitarianism. Is that what Europe really intends to do? Why is no one asking this question in public?
Frustrating someone for 3 months and promising them that they'll get their stuff back "any minute now" should cost what you take from that person -- their peace of mind for that time. Oh, and that judge didn't sue for the cost of the pants. He sued because the store provided lousy service and yet kept lying about it by keeping "satisfaction guaranteed" sign on the storefront. The material things in question are not the only part of the cost. Taking away from people the time of their lives is the biggest cost. And those who do it and then lie about it on such a massive scale (as the store in question) should pay for it. Lawsuits are supposed to compensate for the damages suffered -- not just the material things lost. To say that only the material things can cost money is to say that human beings and time of their lives is worthless.
Rather than the number of infringement per capita it would be interesting to see the correlation between the number of infringiments per capita and the bandwidth available to an end-user per capita. I mean, so what if US has less infringement than Canada? Maybe that's just because US residents have less of a chance to infringe due to not having broadband access.
Last time I was in Switzerland (about 3 years ago) the guard at the airport checked my (American) passport and just let me go. No stamp -- nothing. So effectively, there was no record of my ever visiting the country. Yes, I know the plane tickets and such, but those who are really interested and invested in preserving their real-world anonymity would probably reserve plane tickets and pass border guards with different passports. The point of an anonymous account is not so much that its content cannot be subpoened with a court order, but rather it is that its existance is next to impossible to establish. Any biometric passports would throw that out the window. It might be just an old wives' tale, but it seems to be that anonymous banking is a rather large part of Swiss economy. So I don't think they would implement any rules that might undermine it.
Fair enough. Although this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement does state that they are set to implement it by Nov 2008. I don't believe the article was clear enough as to what Switzerland will do. I find it laughable that Poland would demand anyone's fingerprints, but my notions of Poland are probably outdated by about 15 years.
Encryption is illegal in Britain. That is you must surrender your keys upon request by the government. Any notions you may have about Britain not being a police state are wrong.
Not exactly European Union. It says Schengen. That includes Switzerland. So Switzerland with all of its anonymous banking is going to require biometric data for people leaving and coming to the country? Why do I not think this will happen?
The book was first published in 1957. She worked on it for 7 years. As for the claim of nuclear power being Galt's engine of the real world, I'd say it's a stretch. Having said, the perspective on the book that you point out is actually new to me. So thanks. Certainly examples can be easily constructed that show how it applies in the world of the Internet. I guess what struck me about the rain drops is the visual itself. Both Galt's engine and the the raindrops seem to draw on energy from essentially thin air. Of course, the analogy stops there.
Ok, well, in this the authorization for copyright laws comes from the recognizing the need to promote science and arts. Government documents are not even with an earshot of that standard.
Governments can claim copyright? How? There are so many argument against it, I am not even sure where to start.