Privatization always works out great for regular people, like the water supply in Flint Michigan. I wonder if Americans will ever figure out that privatization is a con job by oligarchs to get your money for themselves under the guise of efficiency. Our privatized health care system sucks, and it costs twice as much as non-profit systems that have no co-pays and cover everyone. You're being conned folks.
I sent you a link where it was clearly stated that our time system is arbitrary. I also sent you another definition of arbitrary that fits perfectly. So I have to assume you're just yanking my chain now. You lost the debate after your snarky comment about me not being good at this. I actually know something about circadian biology, you obviously don't. Dunning-Kruger.
How can anyone say this is extortion? Why did Mozzila sign the honesty form ("industry standard responsible disclosure plan,")? Maybe because they are more honest than MS? Maybe because they have nothing to hide? This is an attempt to shame the cowardly tech giants that have been in on this crap from the beginning. Sign the form, fix the holes!
So we just copied what Britain had already done? Don't think so. Who first put major taps into the communications systems in order to "collect it all"?
The "collect it all" technology is purely American in origin. We put the "5 eyes" team together. We built the infrastructure for it. That had nothing to do with the Vatican. You can pretend otherwise, but you are only fooling yourself.
Look, you are the one who started in with the "you aren't very good at this are you?" comments. Or was that supposed to add value to the discussion? Clearly you are not as good at it as you thought, and the Dunning Kruger effect was quite evident. Then you decided to go after my use of the term arbitrary, when in fact that was the correct word to use. Much of what you said was not adding value to the discussion. And you know that the idea of making all clocks auto-synchronize just isn't going to happen any time soon. So we are back to the usefulness of a 1 hour, arbitrary, time shift twice a year. As a biologist who started out in circadian biology: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... I find DST to be very arbitrary and counterproductive considering it even leads to increased heart attacks and traffic accidents. But crudely matching sine waves is so cool! Right?
The link you sent said nothing about our time system not being an arbitrary scale. I sent you a link, that you apparently did not read. Why AM and PM? Why not just 12 hours that are twice as long? Your link says nothing about that. How about you find me a link to a good source that says there is nothing arbitrary about our time system of 24 hours a day?
is the preeminent spying, wiretapping, snooping, eavesdropping entity on Earth. Hell, we invented most of it. We should be proud that our snoopiness is so great that everyone wants to imitate us. What could possibly go wrong?
And while we are at it, explain why we have AM and PM. Wouldn't it be more logical to have 12 hours a day (twice as long), and no AM/PM distinction? Now if you can show that this is not just making up a rule without any reason based on the natural system, then you have failed to make your point. Why do we have to designate that it is 1 am or 1 pm? I would not have made a system like that. Would you? Think.
Face it, the system is one of many that could have been devised, and this one was chosen for arbitrary reasons based on the people who designed it.
If you can stand it, take a look at this:
"As a rational policy, daylight saving time may be ineffective. But as a social ritual, it retains real value. Our biannual clock-tuning is a slip of the mask, a glitch in the matrix that reminds us that clock time is always artificial and arbitrary."
You still have not said why there are 24 hours in a day, instead of some other possible number from among the many possible time systems that people could have come up with. Our specific system is one of many possible systems. I note that you chose the definition of arbitrary that fits your simple preconceived notions. Here is another:
"subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:"
Now explain how 24 hours as opposed to 12 hours that are twice as long does not fit that definition?
You seem to think that you have thought this through, when you clearly have not at all. When I say arbitrary, I don't mean that it does not conform to rules, it is just that it is one possible system among many that could be used in its place. It is a human devised convention, not a law of nature. If you can't get that, then I can't reason with you.
How do you explain that there are 24 hours in a day, rather than 12 time periods that are each twice as long? Are you saying that is not arbitrary? Maybe you think money is a natural phenomenon and the dollar is not arbitrary. Yes, man made conventions are arbitrary as to the specifics. You only mean it is not arbitrary because it has to somehow reflect the underlying natural phenomenon being modeled or mapped. And if you don't think DST is arbitrary, then you should look up the definition.
"It was specifically designed to match the rotation of the earth using units common at the time. That is not spin the bottle"
Designed by God or nature? Oh, you mean made up by people. So it is one of many possible human time systems, and not a natural system. There could be 12 hours a day, or 48. So that is arbitrary, and artificial. DST is another artificial, arbitrary aspect of that human invented system. And it does not mesh well with the recipients of the system, namely humans, who's circadian clocks don't like time jumping around by an hour twice a year.
Are you claiming that human devised clock time is not an arbitrary scale in the sense that it is man-made, and could have been implemented many other ways? Clearly, if clock time was not arbitrary, then there would be no DST. That is another arbitrary convention. Mapping to a sign wave in two opposite jumps doesn't sound like any rational mapping to me. If you are going to do this, then all clocks must be able to auto-sync to a standard clock that shifts by seconds per day, accounting for longitude and latitude. A global time system that adjusts correctly, locally and everywhere.
Closer to the natural cycle? You clearly have not thought this through. How is changing by 1 hour twice a year, in just two big jumps, anything like a natural cycle? Clock time is arbitrary, and making the time jump around is anything but a "natural cycle".
What benefit is there to DST? Name one single benefit. People are going to drive in the dark in the winter no matter what you do to the time on your clock. Either you drive in the dark in the morning, or in the evening. There are less than 8 hours of light in the beginning of winter, especially as you go further north or south toward the poles. Clearly the trend is to get rid of DST and I say good riddance.
DST is biologically absurd. Earth time is based on an approximately 24 hr day, with seasonal shifts in the length of the day/night cycle based on latitude. Biological organisms synchronize with this cycle (termed circadian entrainment). Trying to shift that cycle by 1 hour artificially twice a year is counterproductive and harmful.
With the newer CRISPR/cas9 editing technology it is getting to be relatively easy to edit genomes. Let's just hope that there isn't too much biological blowback. So far there haven't been serious incidents suggesting that advanced gene editing might not be as dangerous as originally feared. Of course, it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If your goal is to make food crops resistant to poisons so that you can spray more poisons on people's food, then the unintended outcomes are going to be more numerous than if you are trying to cure genetic disorders in people.
Slashdot Mirror
Privatization always works out great for regular people, like the water supply in Flint Michigan. I wonder if Americans will ever figure out that privatization is a con job by oligarchs to get your money for themselves under the guise of efficiency. Our privatized health care system sucks, and it costs twice as much as non-profit systems that have no co-pays and cover everyone. You're being conned folks.
I sent you a link where it was clearly stated that our time system is arbitrary. I also sent you another definition of arbitrary that fits perfectly. So I have to assume you're just yanking my chain now. You lost the debate after your snarky comment about me not being good at this. I actually know something about circadian biology, you obviously don't. Dunning-Kruger.
How can anyone say this is extortion? Why did Mozzila sign the honesty form ("industry standard responsible disclosure plan,")? Maybe because they are more honest than MS? Maybe because they have nothing to hide? This is an attempt to shame the cowardly tech giants that have been in on this crap from the beginning. Sign the form, fix the holes!
So we just copied what Britain had already done? Don't think so. Who first put major taps into the communications systems in order to "collect it all"?
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying
The "collect it all" technology is purely American in origin. We put the "5 eyes" team together. We built the infrastructure for it. That had nothing to do with the Vatican. You can pretend otherwise, but you are only fooling yourself.
I was referring to the modern "collect it all" spying, not cracking the Enigma. It is a US invention.
Look, you are the one who started in with the "you aren't very good at this are you?" comments. Or was that supposed to add value to the discussion? Clearly you are not as good at it as you thought, and the Dunning Kruger effect was quite evident. Then you decided to go after my use of the term arbitrary, when in fact that was the correct word to use. Much of what you said was not adding value to the discussion. And you know that the idea of making all clocks auto-synchronize just isn't going to happen any time soon. So we are back to the usefulness of a 1 hour, arbitrary, time shift twice a year. As a biologist who started out in circadian biology: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... I find DST to be very arbitrary and counterproductive considering it even leads to increased heart attacks and traffic accidents. But crudely matching sine waves is so cool! Right?
The link you sent said nothing about our time system not being an arbitrary scale. I sent you a link, that you apparently did not read. Why AM and PM? Why not just 12 hours that are twice as long? Your link says nothing about that. How about you find me a link to a good source that says there is nothing arbitrary about our time system of 24 hours a day?
Thanks, that's great. I now accept your unsubstantiated claims without reservation. Mission Accomplished!
citation please
I take your lack of response as an admission that you were wrong.
is the preeminent spying, wiretapping, snooping, eavesdropping entity on Earth. Hell, we invented most of it. We should be proud that our snoopiness is so great that everyone wants to imitate us. What could possibly go wrong?
And while we are at it, explain why we have AM and PM. Wouldn't it be more logical to have 12 hours a day (twice as long), and no AM/PM distinction? Now if you can show that this is not just making up a rule without any reason based on the natural system, then you have failed to make your point. Why do we have to designate that it is 1 am or 1 pm? I would not have made a system like that. Would you? Think.
Face it, the system is one of many that could have been devised, and this one was chosen for arbitrary reasons based on the people who designed it.
If you can stand it, take a look at this:
"As a rational policy, daylight saving time may be ineffective. But as a social ritual, it retains real value. Our biannual clock-tuning is a slip of the mask, a glitch in the matrix that reminds us that clock time is always artificial and arbitrary."
Link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You still have not said why there are 24 hours in a day, instead of some other possible number from among the many possible time systems that people could have come up with. Our specific system is one of many possible systems. I note that you chose the definition of arbitrary that fits your simple preconceived notions. Here is another:
"subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:"
Now explain how 24 hours as opposed to 12 hours that are twice as long does not fit that definition?
You seem to think that you have thought this through, when you clearly have not at all. When I say arbitrary, I don't mean that it does not conform to rules, it is just that it is one possible system among many that could be used in its place. It is a human devised convention, not a law of nature. If you can't get that, then I can't reason with you.
How do you explain that there are 24 hours in a day, rather than 12 time periods that are each twice as long? Are you saying that is not arbitrary? Maybe you think money is a natural phenomenon and the dollar is not arbitrary. Yes, man made conventions are arbitrary as to the specifics. You only mean it is not arbitrary because it has to somehow reflect the underlying natural phenomenon being modeled or mapped. And if you don't think DST is arbitrary, then you should look up the definition.
Talk about an inappropriate response, you will the loon award for the day.
Yeah, what could go wrong with dumb robots everywhere, and pesky people getting in the way?
"It was specifically designed to match the rotation of the earth using units common at the time. That is not spin the bottle"
Designed by God or nature? Oh, you mean made up by people. So it is one of many possible human time systems, and not a natural system. There could be 12 hours a day, or 48. So that is arbitrary, and artificial. DST is another artificial, arbitrary aspect of that human invented system. And it does not mesh well with the recipients of the system, namely humans, who's circadian clocks don't like time jumping around by an hour twice a year.
Are you claiming that human devised clock time is not an arbitrary scale in the sense that it is man-made, and could have been implemented many other ways? Clearly, if clock time was not arbitrary, then there would be no DST. That is another arbitrary convention. Mapping to a sign wave in two opposite jumps doesn't sound like any rational mapping to me. If you are going to do this, then all clocks must be able to auto-sync to a standard clock that shifts by seconds per day, accounting for longitude and latitude. A global time system that adjusts correctly, locally and everywhere.
I'm guessing you are about 8 years old, and immature for your age.
Closer to the natural cycle? You clearly have not thought this through. How is changing by 1 hour twice a year, in just two big jumps, anything like a natural cycle? Clock time is arbitrary, and making the time jump around is anything but a "natural cycle".
Get up earlier and stop messing with the clocks. Those are not reasons, those are poor excuses.
What benefit is there to DST? Name one single benefit. People are going to drive in the dark in the winter no matter what you do to the time on your clock. Either you drive in the dark in the morning, or in the evening. There are less than 8 hours of light in the beginning of winter, especially as you go further north or south toward the poles. Clearly the trend is to get rid of DST and I say good riddance.
DST is biologically absurd. Earth time is based on an approximately 24 hr day, with seasonal shifts in the length of the day/night cycle based on latitude. Biological organisms synchronize with this cycle (termed circadian entrainment). Trying to shift that cycle by 1 hour artificially twice a year is counterproductive and harmful.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...
It is time (pun intended) to stop this nonsense.
With the newer CRISPR/cas9 editing technology it is getting to be relatively easy to edit genomes. Let's just hope that there isn't too much biological blowback. So far there haven't been serious incidents suggesting that advanced gene editing might not be as dangerous as originally feared. Of course, it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If your goal is to make food crops resistant to poisons so that you can spray more poisons on people's food, then the unintended outcomes are going to be more numerous than if you are trying to cure genetic disorders in people.