And, on a bigger scale, let's not forget that it's usually the minority party that is clamoring about individual rights. Then the party becomes the party in power, and the roles switch.
You're right that the label goes too far. In another thread, I mention how in Florida if a female flashes someone during spring break, she can be arrested and entered into the system as a sex offender. For the rest of her life, she'll have that label... because she flashed someone on spring break. Ridiculous.
Anyway, I think you took my comment about castration incorrectly. If you reread my comment, you will see it was a mere parenthetical suggesting the extent to which rehabilitation does not work.
Sex offenders don't get rehabilitated (often even with chemical castration). Many other criminals don't get rehabilitated either (thanks to a shitty criminal punishment system), but the incidence is absolutely much higher than with sex offenders.
Anyway, that's why. I don't agree with it, but that's why.
Exactly. That comment completely ignores the reality of... reality. If you have $5 to spend on a widget, and widgets in the US costs $6, is that a lost sale? Um, kind of, I guess. But the sale wasn't possible in the US. Now, if you take that $5 to Widgetstan, where widgets cost $4, and you buy a widget, does that now mean that Widgetstan stole a sale from US?
The answer is no, by the way.
In fact, my job might not exist if not for outsourcing and offshoring.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't some call for the federalization of airport security
Let me take a wild guess: you don't travel often. Those of us who fly every week know that the TSA is not at all a federalization. The regulations followed by an airport's TSA is a total crapshoot when you arrive at the checkpoint. They follow their own rules, based on their own interpretations. Those of us who travel enough get to learn that CLE's TSA allows 3.4oz bottles, but DFW is somehow still stuck on the 3oz. One of my favorite stories is from a lady who bought a TSA branded bag for liquids in EWR, arrives elsewhere, went out for lunch during a layover, then had to come back through security and was denied carryon of the liquids, citing that the bag was too large.
This is probably the most frustrating thing about traveling, since the very purpose of air travel requires that you deal with different branches of the TSA org chart.
Anyone have a list of airports? I need to put them on my personal no-fly list, along with the airports participating in the "trusted passenger" trial (e.g., MCO).
The Moz page you cite says nothing about document.formname.elementname being no longer allowed. It only cites the IE-only formname.elementname shortcut, which was always insane and never standard.
See, I completely ignored that line, since, you know, it does nothing but assign a value to a variable that falls out of scope two lines later. Is that what the parent is complaining about?
It wouldn't. That is standard notation (has been for at least 10 years), whether W3C acknowledges it or not (and I'd be surprised to find out it actually isn't part of the W3C standard).
Apparently the DVDs will also be subject to DRM restrictions placed by download services such as limiting the times a movie can be played back
We're sorry. Viewing restrictions on this DVD are such that you may only watch Star Whores Episode II - Attack of the Bones between 2pm and 5pm, when your wife is at work.
A lot of things like this are true. For example, a lot of company owners would be much better off selling all their assets and investing the money in government bonds. Often this alone matches or exceeds the current growth levels, with one very interesting advantage: the owner is now free to do other work (opportunity cost).
I find the fact that companies don't do this one of the most interesting psychological phenomena ever. Just about every other decision in business comes down to which of two numbers (profit) is higher (of course, some people are really, really bad at estimating these numbers and ignore otherwise obvious costs like turnover cost, but I digress).
What happens if all bittorrent clients were BitTyrant clients? So each client is connected to peers, each of which is also a BitTyrant client. It seems to me that any client would end up with only one active peer, because all others would have a lower initial contribution ratio, which would cause the original client to have a lower upload ratio, which would cause each of the peers to decrease their contribution ratio, which would cause the original client to have a lower upload ratio... etc...
I see this experiment as extremely relevant for several reasons:
* It's found a way to replicate a watershed psychological experiment that previously could not be replicated for ethical reasons. Replication of experiments, especially with our greater capacity to record and analyze information, is frequently valuable. In psychology, where the results can actually change over time, it's even more valuable.
You have a point, except that this is not a valid replication of Milgram. I realize that you might come back and say "you can't have it both ways; either it's doing something different or it's not." Well, what I have been saying is that it is different, but not in a way that provides any information that we didn't already know for tens of years. This is further explained in my parent comment.
* It's demonstrated that people can have trouble performing "cruel" tasks even when they *know* no actual harm is done.
Unless I am missing something (we don't have the article yet), this experiment definitely did not show this. It only showed that individuals have the autonomic response. I would not equate elevated heart rate or increased urine production with having trouble performing a task, for example. These are things associated with the "fight or flight" reaction. We have known for tens of years that this is an instinctive reaction, which is why this experiment provides no new information (obviously if it is instinctive, it wouldn't matter if your brain knows on a higher level that it shouldn't be afraid or anxious).
This has implications for virtual learning... for example, perhaps medical interns can learn a great deal from performing surgery or examining virtual patients, since they may still care whether the patient lives or dies.
You are talking about higher cognitive function. This is an entirely different system from the autonomic nervous system. What you say is likely true (however, the student will likely only care because her grade is at stake), but it doesn't follow from this experiment.
Now, what it implies, but doesn't actually demonstrate, is that doing "virtual violence" may have the same desensitizing effect as real violence.
Now this is an interesting point I had not thought of. It is possible that the autonomic response itself becomes sensitized to particular inputs. Because we know that there is a feedback loop from the autonomic nervous system (i.e., you feel a higher sense of "love" when you are anxious because your higher cog functions assumes you are anxious because you feel "love", even if you are anxious for an entirely different reason -- see the roller coaster love experiments), it is possible that this sensitization will influence the higher cognitive "sensitization" (behavioral). So, in other words, continued exposure could end up lowering your autonomic response to such conditions, which could influence (reduce) your cognitive response to such conditions. A study like this could be used as evidence in a grant proposal for future study, but there's not a strong enough implication for anything else. But, like I said, an interesting point, so kudos.
You continue:
The reason why it's not relevant in that regard is because the vast majority of our "virtual violence" is specifically FANTASY, which definitely has a different effect than attempts at realism.
Now, this is where I disagree. It actually is the exact opposite of what you said. If the conclusions of this experiment are sound, then it should not matter whether the environment is fantasy or real. As long as it conjures a realistic enough perception (essentially, all it would take is sensory modalities not conflicting), then there should absolutely be an autonomic response. Then, if your above suggestion that this response can be sensitized is sound, then this should have the same sensitizing effect. Again, the key here is that this autonomic response is instinctive and happens before higher cognitive function. (And, in case it wasn't obvious, I guess another key that I failed to mention before is: the autonomic nervous system cannot be controlled by the conscious brain in any way.)
Slashdot Mirror
And, on a bigger scale, let's not forget that it's usually the minority party that is clamoring about individual rights. Then the party becomes the party in power, and the roles switch.
Same old.
Does this come before or after I get my flying car?
Did Ballmer spend the day mending a broken chair.
You're right that the label goes too far. In another thread, I mention how in Florida if a female flashes someone during spring break, she can be arrested and entered into the system as a sex offender. For the rest of her life, she'll have that label... because she flashed someone on spring break. Ridiculous.
Anyway, I think you took my comment about castration incorrectly. If you reread my comment, you will see it was a mere parenthetical suggesting the extent to which rehabilitation does not work.
And, thanks to idiot Florida law, flashing while on spring break.
Sex offenders don't get rehabilitated (often even with chemical castration). Many other criminals don't get rehabilitated either (thanks to a shitty criminal punishment system), but the incidence is absolutely much higher than with sex offenders.
Anyway, that's why. I don't agree with it, but that's why.
Exactly. That comment completely ignores the reality of... reality. If you have $5 to spend on a widget, and widgets in the US costs $6, is that a lost sale? Um, kind of, I guess. But the sale wasn't possible in the US. Now, if you take that $5 to Widgetstan, where widgets cost $4, and you buy a widget, does that now mean that Widgetstan stole a sale from US?
The answer is no, by the way.
In fact, my job might not exist if not for outsourcing and offshoring.
joke.
The well-known conversion rate between EU cash and real money allows this
For those interested, the EU-to-real-money conversion rate is 1.00 EU = 1.29972 USD according to xe.com.
Not sure how this is news, though. I have been converting between US dollars and Euros for years.
#1 Have you SEEN the reinforced doors on the RJs?
#2 Sure, extra security. Oops, except for red-eyes. Real tough to get FAMs to sign up for those late night flights.
SECURITY THEATER.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't some call for the federalization of airport security
Let me take a wild guess: you don't travel often. Those of us who fly every week know that the TSA is not at all a federalization. The regulations followed by an airport's TSA is a total crapshoot when you arrive at the checkpoint. They follow their own rules, based on their own interpretations. Those of us who travel enough get to learn that CLE's TSA allows 3.4oz bottles, but DFW is somehow still stuck on the 3oz. One of my favorite stories is from a lady who bought a TSA branded bag for liquids in EWR, arrives elsewhere, went out for lunch during a layover, then had to come back through security and was denied carryon of the liquids, citing that the bag was too large.
This is probably the most frustrating thing about traveling, since the very purpose of air travel requires that you deal with different branches of the TSA org chart.
Anyone have a list of airports? I need to put them on my personal no-fly list, along with the airports participating in the "trusted passenger" trial (e.g., MCO).
No worries. An easy mistake. As soon as I saw that, I knew that was the point of confusion.
And, anyway, I'm with you for a different reason. document.forms['formname'] is quite a lot more readable than document.formname.
The Moz page you cite says nothing about document.formname.elementname being no longer allowed. It only cites the IE-only formname.elementname shortcut, which was always insane and never standard.
Well that line does nothing but assign a value to a variable that falls out of scope 2 lines later.
And, anyway, you can access the text node itself rather than using the DOM L3 shortcut.
I personally use it regularly for nuclear spectroscopy
Yeah, who doesn't?
See, I completely ignored that line, since, you know, it does nothing but assign a value to a variable that falls out of scope two lines later. Is that what the parent is complaining about?
It wouldn't. That is standard notation (has been for at least 10 years), whether W3C acknowledges it or not (and I'd be surprised to find out it actually isn't part of the W3C standard).
What in this doesn't work in IE7? (Please say it's the innerHTML part!)
Apparently the DVDs will also be subject to DRM restrictions placed by download services such as limiting the times a movie can be played back
We're sorry. Viewing restrictions on this DVD are such that you may only watch Star Whores Episode II - Attack of the Bones between 2pm and 5pm, when your wife is at work.
A lot of things like this are true. For example, a lot of company owners would be much better off selling all their assets and investing the money in government bonds. Often this alone matches or exceeds the current growth levels, with one very interesting advantage: the owner is now free to do other work (opportunity cost).
I find the fact that companies don't do this one of the most interesting psychological phenomena ever. Just about every other decision in business comes down to which of two numbers (profit) is higher (of course, some people are really, really bad at estimating these numbers and ignore otherwise obvious costs like turnover cost, but I digress).
Oh, yes, you're quite right. Before this, no one could lie on their resumes or during their interview.
bitty rant?
What happens if all bittorrent clients were BitTyrant clients? So each client is connected to peers, each of which is also a BitTyrant client. It seems to me that any client would end up with only one active peer, because all others would have a lower initial contribution ratio, which would cause the original client to have a lower upload ratio, which would cause each of the peers to decrease their contribution ratio, which would cause the original client to have a lower upload ratio... etc...
I see this experiment as extremely relevant for several reasons: * It's found a way to replicate a watershed psychological experiment that previously could not be replicated for ethical reasons. Replication of experiments, especially with our greater capacity to record and analyze information, is frequently valuable. In psychology, where the results can actually change over time, it's even more valuable.
You have a point, except that this is not a valid replication of Milgram. I realize that you might come back and say "you can't have it both ways; either it's doing something different or it's not." Well, what I have been saying is that it is different, but not in a way that provides any information that we didn't already know for tens of years. This is further explained in my parent comment.
* It's demonstrated that people can have trouble performing "cruel" tasks even when they *know* no actual harm is done.
Unless I am missing something (we don't have the article yet), this experiment definitely did not show this. It only showed that individuals have the autonomic response. I would not equate elevated heart rate or increased urine production with having trouble performing a task, for example. These are things associated with the "fight or flight" reaction. We have known for tens of years that this is an instinctive reaction, which is why this experiment provides no new information (obviously if it is instinctive, it wouldn't matter if your brain knows on a higher level that it shouldn't be afraid or anxious).
This has implications for virtual learning... for example, perhaps medical interns can learn a great deal from performing surgery or examining virtual patients, since they may still care whether the patient lives or dies.
You are talking about higher cognitive function. This is an entirely different system from the autonomic nervous system. What you say is likely true (however, the student will likely only care because her grade is at stake), but it doesn't follow from this experiment.
Now, what it implies, but doesn't actually demonstrate, is that doing "virtual violence" may have the same desensitizing effect as real violence.
Now this is an interesting point I had not thought of. It is possible that the autonomic response itself becomes sensitized to particular inputs. Because we know that there is a feedback loop from the autonomic nervous system (i.e., you feel a higher sense of "love" when you are anxious because your higher cog functions assumes you are anxious because you feel "love", even if you are anxious for an entirely different reason -- see the roller coaster love experiments), it is possible that this sensitization will influence the higher cognitive "sensitization" (behavioral). So, in other words, continued exposure could end up lowering your autonomic response to such conditions, which could influence (reduce) your cognitive response to such conditions. A study like this could be used as evidence in a grant proposal for future study, but there's not a strong enough implication for anything else. But, like I said, an interesting point, so kudos.
You continue:
The reason why it's not relevant in that regard is because the vast majority of our "virtual violence" is specifically FANTASY, which definitely has a different effect than attempts at realism.
Now, this is where I disagree. It actually is the exact opposite of what you said. If the conclusions of this experiment are sound, then it should not matter whether the environment is fantasy or real. As long as it conjures a realistic enough perception (essentially, all it would take is sensory modalities not conflicting), then there should absolutely be an autonomic response. Then, if your above suggestion that this response can be sensitized is sound, then this should have the same sensitizing effect. Again, the key here is that this autonomic response is instinctive and happens before higher cognitive function. (And, in case it wasn't obvious, I guess another key that I failed to mention before is: the autonomic nervous system cannot be controlled by the conscious brain in any way.)