Really? If that were so, gambling wouldn't be a $460 billion industry. In fact, our brain often gets it wrong.
It is so. Which is why most people don't gamble after trying it a few times and losing. People tend to be risk averse if they can't understand the risks. I did say estimating probabilities rather than calculating probabilities. If the brain were calculating probabilities, it would make a basketball shot every time after trying and missing a few times. But, because it estimates, it can only get as good at it as that part of the brain can get at making that particular estimate.
It seems reasonable to assume that the universe follows some underlying set of axioms,
Why? The device which you use to make your conclusions (your brain) is good at estimating probabilities. But it's fairly terrible at distinguishing what you observe with your senses from what you observe as a result of its culling of information and whatever other information you imagine as a result of its inner workings. What makes it worse, the sum total of observations which we can make will always be a compact set. So we literally cannot observe the universe if it is an open set of information.
So on that level it seems entirely reasonable to assert that yes, mathematics is real.
No, it's not. Because of Goedel's proof, you can never prove completeness of any axiomatic system. So even if you stumbled on a set of axioms which describe the natural world, you'd always have statements about it whose truth-value cannot be determined. So you'd never know if the system of axioms you concocted fully describes the world or not.
Mathematics is not real at all. And it is entirely real. It studies implications of assumptions. The assumptions do not at all have to be based in reality. Ask your favorite mathematician about axiom of choice if you don't believe me on that one. Math is based on a priori deductions. These deductiosn do not need to be and, in fact, cannot be verified through observations. Sometimes the conclusions which are made from mathematical assumptions match the observed reality. And then scientists try to see if the underlying assumptions on which those conclusions were based also match reality. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Without empirical validation, science remains unproved and a-priori-based hypothesis. Only observation can make it a posteori conclusive.
Not that simple if he had a better line of sight on them than they did on him. They didn't know why he was talking to a negotiator or why he wasn't constantly shooting. For all they knew, he could have been sitting back and picking out his targets carefully. If they took a hostile action which didn't take him out right away, he could then become less picky about his targets. He was trained to survive in this kind of situation against trained military personal. Police had no way of knowing how deadly he was going to be if they didn't take him out.
How is anyone drawing a comparison between a traffic stop and the process of subduing a criminal in the middle of the act of the crime? He refused to surrender after talking to a negotiator. He wasn't being arrested. He was being subdued. Any comparison to a traffic stop is inappropriate. Even a comparison to a police chase would be inappropriate. He was shooting at people. How is that not a reason to take him out?
"Actually working"? You mean working with your mind is not "actual" work? Only getting "your hands dirty" is work? Didn't realize this was a site for plumbers.... I exaggerate, but that's the sentiment. Respecting the product of your own mind means emphasizing that it is your mind that's doing the working rather than the rest of your body.
Right. So someone with military training doesn't know how to create a secured bunker-like location on a higher ground which can be used as a shooting position. The whole stupidity of this AC comment is just too overwhelming to grasp.
If they could see him well enough to see if he was a threat, they would have taken a shot at him. They have absolutely no responsibility to try to spare the life of a criminal who is in the middle of a murder spree.
Maybe SWAT could have been used. But that's really the cops' call. If nothing else, it would have put at risk the SWAT's teams lives. They were not dealing with someone making demands. They were dealing someone out to kill people. This a murder spree in progress. Taking out someone in that situation is entirely justified.
If I took a few gun shots at him, that would be his judgement call. This wasn't a hostage negotiation. They dealing with someone who already killed a few people and was clearly intending to kill more.
He declared "war on" poverty because that choice of words was resonating as something positive at the time he did it. Americans were still under the spell of belief that a government can do something good by winning a war (because it had just won the war against Naziism). So this was a way to convince the public to handle the reigns of managing social programs to the government.
How has the hashtag inspired violence? The police killings of blacks is what is inspiring the violence and murder.
It has inspired violence by creating a perception that police thinks and acts otherwise. That perception is ubiquitous. While blacks do get killed by police at higher per capita rates, the hashtag created a perception that blacks are the new indians and cops are the new cowboys trying to wipe out the indians. Which is absurd. Policing black neighborhoods saves more black lives than it takes. Most of black homicide victims are killed by criminals rather than by cops. So cops' presence in black neighborhoods is an overall net positive for the those neighborhoods. The fact that some policemen can't handle the stress of the job, snap and kill innocent civilians is an indication that there needs to be better periodic re-evaluation of the police officers for suitability for non-desk jobs. The fact is that more innocent white people are killed by cops than innocent black people, but per capita rates are higher for blacks. But the difference in these per capita rates does not rise to the level of exaggerated perception that there is a war on black people being fought by cops. This perception was not born out of reality. It was born out of the BLM movement.
Newsflash: the management likes the idea of engineers not wearing suits and dressing like hoodlums. There is a reason why slaves were forced to work naked and nobles were more clothing than they needed. It creates a perception that you produce something with your body rather than with your mind. A suit restricts the range of your body movements. It serves to make the statement that only your mind and the palms of your hand are involved in doing your work. Getting engineers to believe that grit is a virtue is effectively a way instill an inferiority complex into them. Full disclosure: I do not sell suits or any formal wear nor have any investments in suits (or any formal wear) manufacturing or distributing ventures.
For example, if you explicitly tell your employer that there is a job you don't want to do and at some point they assign you to do that job, you are justified in quitting on the spot.
Unless he doesn't fire him. And claims that the goal has been accomplished. Because he won't reveal how he "achieved" the goal, he will undermine (at least to some degree) public trust in encryption. It is hard to say, at this point, what his aims are. But it is definitely a high-stake poker game now.
How? Even though most people are not tech-aware enough to write their own communications software, it's so ubiquitous now that getting a program which will allow you to encrypt all your voice calls is just a matter of compiling it. I mean, it's as simple as installing an operating system on a bare-bones PC. That's not exactly a high-level skill. This seems more like an attempt to force everyone living in Russia to encrypt their communications to increase the level of security of internal communications. Unlike Americans, who are basic sometime cynical but basically trusting of the government, RF citizens (and don't call them Russians because of them aren't) still retains the old Soviet attitude of cynicism towards any stated goals of the government.
Speech promoting violence is against Youtube policy. So you'd expect it to get suppressed along with all other speech which violates terms of service. The same is true of racist views. As a private company, they don't have to allow their platform to be used as soap box for anything which can be said on soap box on a public street. I have seen some pretty disgusting stuff on Youtube and reported for removal. But I don't think anyone would or should get arrested for spewing such crap (some was regurgitation of antisemitic nonsense and some was instructions in how to add as much gore as possible to publicly planted explosiones). I don't think Google would want to a platform for spreading either, but even the one which instructed in how to make explosions gory did not actually call for violence to happen (only how to make it more graphic if it were to happen) and because it could be claimed to have artistic value to potential film makers, it would not necessarily get a conviction at a trial. Even something more innocent (instructions on how to steal cars) is probably not something that a Google streaming service would want to host. Just because we, as a society, decided we are better off not jailing ass holes, doesn't mean that everyone who has the ability to do so has to assist them in being ass holes.
i make the point of appearing naked in front of any cameras i have in my home which i know to be off. if someone is recording without my knowledge, at least they'll suffer.
if there is no analog jack, it prevents 3rd party go-em-between recording devices from being manufactured. it's legal in most states to record your own phone calls. so this prevents general public from recording and storing their phone calls in a truly off-line manner. right now every time a customer service agent give you the "i don't know who told you that" line, you can play back for them the recording of the call. if all audio goes over an encrypted wire, this becomes a much more difficult task. if for no other reason that any software solution which does this is not guaranteed to not store this info on apple servers. right now a recorder can store it on any media you'd keep inside your home.
Slashdot Mirror
That's precisely why they "get the big bucks".
Really? If that were so, gambling wouldn't be a $460 billion industry. In fact, our brain often gets it wrong.
It is so. Which is why most people don't gamble after trying it a few times and losing. People tend to be risk averse if they can't understand the risks. I did say estimating probabilities rather than calculating probabilities. If the brain were calculating probabilities, it would make a basketball shot every time after trying and missing a few times. But, because it estimates, it can only get as good at it as that part of the brain can get at making that particular estimate.
It seems reasonable to assume that the universe follows some underlying set of axioms,
Why? The device which you use to make your conclusions (your brain) is good at estimating probabilities. But it's fairly terrible at distinguishing what you observe with your senses from what you observe as a result of its culling of information and whatever other information you imagine as a result of its inner workings. What makes it worse, the sum total of observations which we can make will always be a compact set. So we literally cannot observe the universe if it is an open set of information.
So on that level it seems entirely reasonable to assert that yes, mathematics is real.
No, it's not. Because of Goedel's proof, you can never prove completeness of any axiomatic system. So even if you stumbled on a set of axioms which describe the natural world, you'd always have statements about it whose truth-value cannot be determined. So you'd never know if the system of axioms you concocted fully describes the world or not.
Mathematics is not real at all. And it is entirely real. It studies implications of assumptions. The assumptions do not at all have to be based in reality. Ask your favorite mathematician about axiom of choice if you don't believe me on that one. Math is based on a priori deductions. These deductiosn do not need to be and, in fact, cannot be verified through observations. Sometimes the conclusions which are made from mathematical assumptions match the observed reality. And then scientists try to see if the underlying assumptions on which those conclusions were based also match reality. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Without empirical validation, science remains unproved and a-priori-based hypothesis. Only observation can make it a posteori conclusive.
Not that simple if he had a better line of sight on them than they did on him. They didn't know why he was talking to a negotiator or why he wasn't constantly shooting. For all they knew, he could have been sitting back and picking out his targets carefully. If they took a hostile action which didn't take him out right away, he could then become less picky about his targets. He was trained to survive in this kind of situation against trained military personal. Police had no way of knowing how deadly he was going to be if they didn't take him out.
How is anyone drawing a comparison between a traffic stop and the process of subduing a criminal in the middle of the act of the crime? He refused to surrender after talking to a negotiator. He wasn't being arrested. He was being subdued. Any comparison to a traffic stop is inappropriate. Even a comparison to a police chase would be inappropriate. He was shooting at people. How is that not a reason to take him out?
"Actually working"? You mean working with your mind is not "actual" work? Only getting "your hands dirty" is work? Didn't realize this was a site for plumbers.... I exaggerate, but that's the sentiment. Respecting the product of your own mind means emphasizing that it is your mind that's doing the working rather than the rest of your body.
Right. So someone with military training doesn't know how to create a secured bunker-like location on a higher ground which can be used as a shooting position. The whole stupidity of this AC comment is just too overwhelming to grasp.
If they could see him well enough to see if he was a threat, they would have taken a shot at him. They have absolutely no responsibility to try to spare the life of a criminal who is in the middle of a murder spree.
Maybe SWAT could have been used. But that's really the cops' call. If nothing else, it would have put at risk the SWAT's teams lives. They were not dealing with someone making demands. They were dealing someone out to kill people. This a murder spree in progress. Taking out someone in that situation is entirely justified.
If I took a few gun shots at him, that would be his judgement call. This wasn't a hostage negotiation. They dealing with someone who already killed a few people and was clearly intending to kill more.
You are wrong.
By strapping a lethal with the intent to kill, it was obviously revenge.
No, they had a hostage negotiator and he was trying to talk him into surrendering. It failed.
So what's the difference in each situation?
Having him holed up didn't make a difference because he was able to shoot people while holed up.
They had no way of knowing that he wasn't prepared to be gassed. And if he was, it would give him a chance to take a few more lives.
He declared "war on" poverty because that choice of words was resonating as something positive at the time he did it. Americans were still under the spell of belief that a government can do something good by winning a war (because it had just won the war against Naziism). So this was a way to convince the public to handle the reigns of managing social programs to the government.
How has the hashtag inspired violence? The police killings of blacks is what is inspiring the violence and murder.
It has inspired violence by creating a perception that police thinks and acts otherwise. That perception is ubiquitous. While blacks do get killed by police at higher per capita rates, the hashtag created a perception that blacks are the new indians and cops are the new cowboys trying to wipe out the indians. Which is absurd. Policing black neighborhoods saves more black lives than it takes. Most of black homicide victims are killed by criminals rather than by cops. So cops' presence in black neighborhoods is an overall net positive for the those neighborhoods. The fact that some policemen can't handle the stress of the job, snap and kill innocent civilians is an indication that there needs to be better periodic re-evaluation of the police officers for suitability for non-desk jobs. The fact is that more innocent white people are killed by cops than innocent black people, but per capita rates are higher for blacks. But the difference in these per capita rates does not rise to the level of exaggerated perception that there is a war on black people being fought by cops. This perception was not born out of reality. It was born out of the BLM movement.
Newsflash: the management likes the idea of engineers not wearing suits and dressing like hoodlums. There is a reason why slaves were forced to work naked and nobles were more clothing than they needed. It creates a perception that you produce something with your body rather than with your mind. A suit restricts the range of your body movements. It serves to make the statement that only your mind and the palms of your hand are involved in doing your work. Getting engineers to believe that grit is a virtue is effectively a way instill an inferiority complex into them. Full disclosure: I do not sell suits or any formal wear nor have any investments in suits (or any formal wear) manufacturing or distributing ventures.
For example, if you explicitly tell your employer that there is a job you don't want to do and at some point they assign you to do that job, you are justified in quitting on the spot.
The intent is to create a regime by which anyone actually using the internet to do much of anything is vulnerable to persecution or arrest.
In RF everyone is already subject to arrest without cause.
Unless he doesn't fire him. And claims that the goal has been accomplished. Because he won't reveal how he "achieved" the goal, he will undermine (at least to some degree) public trust in encryption. It is hard to say, at this point, what his aims are. But it is definitely a high-stake poker game now.
How? Even though most people are not tech-aware enough to write their own communications software, it's so ubiquitous now that getting a program which will allow you to encrypt all your voice calls is just a matter of compiling it. I mean, it's as simple as installing an operating system on a bare-bones PC. That's not exactly a high-level skill. This seems more like an attempt to force everyone living in Russia to encrypt their communications to increase the level of security of internal communications. Unlike Americans, who are basic sometime cynical but basically trusting of the government, RF citizens (and don't call them Russians because of them aren't) still retains the old Soviet attitude of cynicism towards any stated goals of the government.
Speech promoting violence is against Youtube policy. So you'd expect it to get suppressed along with all other speech which violates terms of service. The same is true of racist views. As a private company, they don't have to allow their platform to be used as soap box for anything which can be said on soap box on a public street. I have seen some pretty disgusting stuff on Youtube and reported for removal. But I don't think anyone would or should get arrested for spewing such crap (some was regurgitation of antisemitic nonsense and some was instructions in how to add as much gore as possible to publicly planted explosiones). I don't think Google would want to a platform for spreading either, but even the one which instructed in how to make explosions gory did not actually call for violence to happen (only how to make it more graphic if it were to happen) and because it could be claimed to have artistic value to potential film makers, it would not necessarily get a conviction at a trial. Even something more innocent (instructions on how to steal cars) is probably not something that a Google streaming service would want to host. Just because we, as a society, decided we are better off not jailing ass holes, doesn't mean that everyone who has the ability to do so has to assist them in being ass holes.
i make the point of appearing naked in front of any cameras i have in my home which i know to be off. if someone is recording without my knowledge, at least they'll suffer.
if there is no analog jack, it prevents 3rd party go-em-between recording devices from being manufactured. it's legal in most states to record your own phone calls. so this prevents general public from recording and storing their phone calls in a truly off-line manner. right now every time a customer service agent give you the "i don't know who told you that" line, you can play back for them the recording of the call. if all audio goes over an encrypted wire, this becomes a much more difficult task. if for no other reason that any software solution which does this is not guaranteed to not store this info on apple servers. right now a recorder can store it on any media you'd keep inside your home.