Why is it that worshipers label all atheists as 'raging' while they play no-true-scotsman fallacy games when challenged about atrocities done in the names of their religions?
Hmm. Interesting. I'm up for a no-true-scotsman game. I claim to be a religious worshiper. I don't label all atheists as "raging". Am I therefore, no true worshiper?
An undue number of religious worshipers claim no-true-scotsman for two reasons. (1) It's often not a no-true-scotsman fallacy at all. There really are massive differences between different sects, and different groups of people within those churches. I know, people don't like to hear that, and therefore it must not be true. Alright then: (2) A certain philosophically-rabid subset of atheists insist on playing guilt-by-association games. No-true-scotsman is the natural (if incorrect) response to that.
I don't care if an atrocity was done in the name of my religion. I'll denounce it too, if you'll let me. Just don't lump me in with the murderer, rapist, pedophile, raving lunatic, ad infinitum. And don't claim that my beliefs must be wrong because they're also held by some well known idiots.
"I believe in God, and I think Slashdot is a group of bigots that will mod me down for my personal beliefs" is flame bait, and should be treated as such.
No, it's hyperbole. There are a lot of them here, and vocal, too. And they do vote with their mod points.
Granted, there are only slightly fewer religious nutjob on Slashdot, so it tends to balance.
(Most atheists aren't bigots. I get that. Many religious people are, but far fewer than the evangelical atheists would have us believe.)
Exactly, best case you'll end up paying $50 for a 26 episode season, that you can watch ONCE. Box set would cost the same and you'd own them.
Not true... at least, not if someone actually came out with a fair pricing model. I know that Hulu, cable companies, et al are getting tons for advertising, but they're not getting that much per viewing. Advertising is effective, but it isn't that effective. They'd never be able to maintain advertisers if they charged that much. It just wouldn't be worth it to advertise.
No, the reasons for those exorbitant prices (or advertising) are contractual. The studios can't sell boxed sets if the show is easier to get across the Internet. They're pricing themselves out of one revenue source because they're not willing to give up on another that they falsely perceive is more profitable.
For a start, a country which can print its own currency can't really go bankrupt.
The technical term is "sovereign debt crisis". I used "bankruptcy" since very few people know the other term. Inflation through printing is a lot like taxation, but with some nasty side effects. if we "printed" our way out of this, we'd still wind up with a sovereign debt crisis, but we'd also acquire hyper-inflation. One of the foundational axioms of fiat currency is that the government that manages it can act like grown-ups. Otherwise, it doesn't work.
And what if declaring bankruptcy would be better than cutting the deficit?
Remember, there is a major difference between the federal debt, and the federal deficit. The debt is how much we owe, and the deficit is how much deeper into the hole we are digging ourselves. If (and at this rate, when) we have a debt crisis, it will no longer be a matter of whether or not to eliminate the deficit. We won't be able to borrow any more. Thus, the deficit will drop practically to zero, by definition.
That would be bad. Not only will it demoralize and panic the economy, (causing all kinds of havoc, starting in the so-called financial sector, but spreading everywhere) but we won't be able to borrow in case of dire emergency. It would probably spark a true depression. It's a lesson we are simply going to need to learn. I just hope it's not by experience.
It beats the alternative. No, I'm serious. You only think "austerity" is bad.
It has been said that the fundamental problem with Democracy is that people eventually figure out that they can vote themselves money... and eventually, one way or another, by defaulting on debts or by hyperinflation, they run out.
(Atrributed to Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.)
The problems with so-called austerity stem from poorly thought through reforms, and from citizens who are loudly upset that they can't get paid on the government's credit card anymore. The former must be addressed. The latter must be suffered through. Consider everyone who's vote has been purchased - yes, bought and paid for. It's crass, but it's also accurate. None of them want to believe they are an inherent part of the problem.
But the biggest "austerity" steps are almost never addressed. Those are to cut out graft and corruption at each and every level of government where it exists. So long as politicians remain in charge, this is a very, very daunting task. Corruption is like a bad mold. It tends to survive even when the house falls down.
You know what they say, we've got the tax-and-spend party and we've got the borrow-and-spend party.
(And the Democrats don't want to tax the rich and give to the poor. That's just bad populist rhetoric. They want to tax the rich and give to different rich people... and buy votes.)
Unfortunately, no political party position is complete without addressing money. You need to decide whether to tax your way out of this hole, or cut your way out. (or both, but aggressively, not half heartedly)
First plank? Cut the deficit all the way to negative. ASAP. That means now, not planning on it several decades out. Real reform hurts, but it will hurt more if we don't address the problem. Can you imagine the US declaring bankruptcy? That's where we're headed. (or the equvalent, anyway) And that's not just the federal government. Many of the states are insolvent right now too. Even some of the big ones (California).
Real deficit cuts are not decreasing the planned growth of deficits! Grab both the Rs and Ds and slap them with this during campaigning.
Second, start spending the money we've got wisely. We're like a leaky sieve. For instance, there's a constant drumbeat of "we've got to support the schools and teachers!" In reality? Almost all the money get's lost between tax payers and the classrooms. Setting more money aside for schools almost never results in increased learning. But cuts? Those go straight to the gullet.
Third, stop the hidden tax. Inflation. The FED and other financial entities have been focused on a constant, steady inflation to "protect" the economy from the boogeyman of deflationary-spirals. The reality is: deflation is a symptom of the spirals, but isn't the primary cause. Healthy economies absorb deflation nicely. The real reason for constant inflation is to cause the stock market to be the safest place for people to store their cash. It's a money grab for the rich, and a way for the Federal government to shrink the value of the national debt.
Oh, no. They undermine their "journalistic integrity" all the time. As long as they can pretend that they don't, they've got no problems there.
Rather, they don't report things that are too difficult for them to understand. They no longer employ as many real journalists who do real research. This is, of course, assuming that there's nobody else in the media that they can parrot. It's called the "echo chamber" for a reason.
The real question is do you blame the IRS for doing what it legally can to function as an entity, or the people for allowing it?
Both. The IRS is more culpable because they actually have their hand in the cookie jar. Legislators who know about this are also guilty, but that's harder to prove.
If it could be crafted into a light weight, well balanced, correctly shaped and colored tool, then sure. By that point, though, you might as well be selling a product line.
The foam ball is still a less intrusive baton modification than other suggestions proposed here, such as using a game controller accelerometer.
Yeah, I pointed that out, but there are just too many posts to get them all. I'd probably get modded to oblivion if I tried.
Something the size of a pea would probably be about enough, anyway.
Depends on the camera quality and where it's put. A poor/old webcam behind and above the singers probably won't cut it. (in front and below might work)
outside of a few particularly pretentious world-class performing ensembles, I doubt many choirmasters would be such egotistical pricks that they'd refuse half a gram of extra baton weight to help a disabled singer.
While I think most conductors would probably consider half a gram, you'd be surprised at just how much of a difference that makes.
Lord knows how your friend will tell a minim from a crotchet.
I've never had the opportunity to ask this before: Does anyone still call them that, or were you joking? If that really is what you're used to calling them, then where are you?
Most conductors don't want to perform with bright foam balls. Besides, batons must be light weight and well balanced. Anything bigger than a pea could cause problems.
It's still over complicating the issue (my response below), but it would be interesting to note that the baton's position is defined precisely by the position of the conductor's hand. If Kinect could be convinced to totally ignore the baton, and if hand angle and roll can be calculated, then it's point could be easily extrapolated based upon hand position.
There's only one answer I can come up with. Have someone stand next to the blind friend and give him/her tactile cues. Hand squeezes would work, but be very basic. If the sighted friend has any skill, holding hands (down by their side) and making a very small pattern would be even better.
Either way, the sighted person would need to pay extraordinarily close attention to tempo changes and cuing. I'd be a hard job, but it would be doable.
As for the aesthetics of the performance? Nobody cares when you're helping a friend like this. If you're really concerned about how it looks, then make it obvious somehow that they're blind. (have them wear the great big stereotypical black glasses, etc)
That's exactly what I was driving at. It's simple. It's clear, and it's far easier to type.
The problem is avoiding garbage like this:
dir asdf qwer, wert poiu, gfds bvcx
Do you parse this as:
dir( asdf(qwer) ), wert(poiu), gfds(bvcx)
Or as:
dir(asdf( qwer, wert( poiu,gfds(bvcx) ) ))
It's not immediately obvious or clear. Thus, great care would need to be taken in designing the change. First word only (first alnum token) would avoid problems like this, but wouldn't be real elegant.
I can understand taking away statements in favor of built-in functions, but that was just too darned handy to yank out from beneath us.
(Now making parenthesis optional on some function calls might be cool... if it doesn't cause Python to become as unreadable/ambiguous as Perl! Great care would need to be taken, and I doubt they'd ever consider it.)
A master craftsman is one who produces work that even great craftsman admire. What makes him a master craftsman, and not just a great one? He chooses the very best tools available, and then creates new ones that do what must be done to create his masterpieces.
In other words, once someone is good enough that the very best tools available hold him back, then he is about to master his trade.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Interesting. I'm up for a no-true-scotsman game. I claim to be a religious worshiper. I don't label all atheists as "raging". Am I therefore, no true worshiper?
An undue number of religious worshipers claim no-true-scotsman for two reasons. (1) It's often not a no-true-scotsman fallacy at all. There really are massive differences between different sects, and different groups of people within those churches. I know, people don't like to hear that, and therefore it must not be true. Alright then: (2) A certain philosophically-rabid subset of atheists insist on playing guilt-by-association games. No-true-scotsman is the natural (if incorrect) response to that.
I don't care if an atrocity was done in the name of my religion. I'll denounce it too, if you'll let me. Just don't lump me in with the murderer, rapist, pedophile, raving lunatic, ad infinitum. And don't claim that my beliefs must be wrong because they're also held by some well known idiots.
No, it's hyperbole. There are a lot of them here, and vocal, too. And they do vote with their mod points.
Granted, there are only slightly fewer religious nutjob on Slashdot, so it tends to balance.
(Most atheists aren't bigots. I get that. Many religious people are, but far fewer than the evangelical atheists would have us believe.)
Exactly, best case you'll end up paying $50 for a 26 episode season, that you can watch ONCE. Box set would cost the same and you'd own them.
Not true... at least, not if someone actually came out with a fair pricing model. I know that Hulu, cable companies, et al are getting tons for advertising, but they're not getting that much per viewing. Advertising is effective, but it isn't that effective. They'd never be able to maintain advertisers if they charged that much. It just wouldn't be worth it to advertise.
No, the reasons for those exorbitant prices (or advertising) are contractual. The studios can't sell boxed sets if the show is easier to get across the Internet. They're pricing themselves out of one revenue source because they're not willing to give up on another that they falsely perceive is more profitable.
The technical term is "sovereign debt crisis". I used "bankruptcy" since very few people know the other term. Inflation through printing is a lot like taxation, but with some nasty side effects. if we "printed" our way out of this, we'd still wind up with a sovereign debt crisis, but we'd also acquire hyper-inflation. One of the foundational axioms of fiat currency is that the government that manages it can act like grown-ups. Otherwise, it doesn't work.
Remember, there is a major difference between the federal debt, and the federal deficit. The debt is how much we owe, and the deficit is how much deeper into the hole we are digging ourselves. If (and at this rate, when) we have a debt crisis, it will no longer be a matter of whether or not to eliminate the deficit. We won't be able to borrow any more. Thus, the deficit will drop practically to zero, by definition.
That would be bad. Not only will it demoralize and panic the economy, (causing all kinds of havoc, starting in the so-called financial sector, but spreading everywhere) but we won't be able to borrow in case of dire emergency. It would probably spark a true depression. It's a lesson we are simply going to need to learn. I just hope it's not by experience.
It beats the alternative. No, I'm serious. You only think "austerity" is bad.
It has been said that the fundamental problem with Democracy is that people eventually figure out that they can vote themselves money... and eventually, one way or another, by defaulting on debts or by hyperinflation, they run out.
(Atrributed to Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.)
The problems with so-called austerity stem from poorly thought through reforms, and from citizens who are loudly upset that they can't get paid on the government's credit card anymore. The former must be addressed. The latter must be suffered through. Consider everyone who's vote has been purchased - yes, bought and paid for. It's crass, but it's also accurate. None of them want to believe they are an inherent part of the problem.
But the biggest "austerity" steps are almost never addressed. Those are to cut out graft and corruption at each and every level of government where it exists. So long as politicians remain in charge, this is a very, very daunting task. Corruption is like a bad mold. It tends to survive even when the house falls down.
Absolutely true. It's also true that these are the implements of liberalism. In short, they are the implements of those in power.
More to the point: the world doesn't just seem to be run by lawyers, it largely is.
You know what they say, we've got the tax-and-spend party and we've got the borrow-and-spend party.
(And the Democrats don't want to tax the rich and give to the poor. That's just bad populist rhetoric. They want to tax the rich and give to different rich people... and buy votes.)
I think that you're right. I pray that you're wrong.
Unfortunately, no political party position is complete without addressing money. You need to decide whether to tax your way out of this hole, or cut your way out. (or both, but aggressively, not half heartedly)
First plank? Cut the deficit all the way to negative. ASAP. That means now, not planning on it several decades out. Real reform hurts, but it will hurt more if we don't address the problem. Can you imagine the US declaring bankruptcy? That's where we're headed. (or the equvalent, anyway) And that's not just the federal government. Many of the states are insolvent right now too. Even some of the big ones (California).
Real deficit cuts are not decreasing the planned growth of deficits! Grab both the Rs and Ds and slap them with this during campaigning.
Second, start spending the money we've got wisely. We're like a leaky sieve. For instance, there's a constant drumbeat of "we've got to support the schools and teachers!" In reality? Almost all the money get's lost between tax payers and the classrooms. Setting more money aside for schools almost never results in increased learning. But cuts? Those go straight to the gullet.
Third, stop the hidden tax. Inflation. The FED and other financial entities have been focused on a constant, steady inflation to "protect" the economy from the boogeyman of deflationary-spirals. The reality is: deflation is a symptom of the spirals, but isn't the primary cause. Healthy economies absorb deflation nicely. The real reason for constant inflation is to cause the stock market to be the safest place for people to store their cash. It's a money grab for the rich, and a way for the Federal government to shrink the value of the national debt.
Oh, no. They undermine their "journalistic integrity" all the time. As long as they can pretend that they don't, they've got no problems there.
Rather, they don't report things that are too difficult for them to understand. They no longer employ as many real journalists who do real research. This is, of course, assuming that there's nobody else in the media that they can parrot. It's called the "echo chamber" for a reason.
The real question is do you blame the IRS for doing what it legally can to function as an entity, or the people for allowing it?
Both. The IRS is more culpable because they actually have their hand in the cookie jar. Legislators who know about this are also guilty, but that's harder to prove.
If it could be crafted into a light weight, well balanced, correctly shaped and colored tool, then sure. By that point, though, you might as well be selling a product line.
* Raises hand *
I'd be going over the backs of seats to give them a flank to worry about.
Yeah, I pointed that out, but there are just too many posts to get them all. I'd probably get modded to oblivion if I tried.
Depends on the camera quality and where it's put. A poor/old webcam behind and above the singers probably won't cut it. (in front and below might work)
While I think most conductors would probably consider half a gram, you'd be surprised at just how much of a difference that makes.
I've never had the opportunity to ask this before: Does anyone still call them that, or were you joking? If that really is what you're used to calling them, then where are you?
No tech solution is needed, just a greater refinement of the helping friend idea.
For instance, holding hands down low, and having the sighted friend move his hand in a very subtle beat pattern when things change.
Kinect is one idea, but Wii controllers are far, far too heavy for this application.
Most conductors don't want to perform with bright foam balls. Besides, batons must be light weight and well balanced. Anything bigger than a pea could cause problems.
It's still over complicating the issue (my response below), but it would be interesting to note that the baton's position is defined precisely by the position of the conductor's hand. If Kinect could be convinced to totally ignore the baton, and if hand angle and roll can be calculated, then it's point could be easily extrapolated based upon hand position.
Gah. No. That'd throw your pitch off terribly.
There's only one answer I can come up with. Have someone stand next to the blind friend and give him/her tactile cues. Hand squeezes would work, but be very basic. If the sighted friend has any skill, holding hands (down by their side) and making a very small pattern would be even better.
Either way, the sighted person would need to pay extraordinarily close attention to tempo changes and cuing. I'd be a hard job, but it would be doable.
As for the aesthetics of the performance? Nobody cares when you're helping a friend like this. If you're really concerned about how it looks, then make it obvious somehow that they're blind. (have them wear the great big stereotypical black glasses, etc)
That's exactly what I was driving at. It's simple. It's clear, and it's far easier to type.
The problem is avoiding garbage like this:
dir asdf qwer, wert poiu, gfds bvcx
Do you parse this as:
dir( asdf(qwer) ), wert(poiu), gfds(bvcx)
Or as:
dir(asdf( qwer, wert( poiu,gfds(bvcx) ) ))
It's not immediately obvious or clear. Thus, great care would need to be taken in designing the change. First word only (first alnum token) would avoid problems like this, but wouldn't be real elegant.
Seconded.
I can understand taking away statements in favor of built-in functions, but that was just too darned handy to yank out from beneath us.
(Now making parenthesis optional on some function calls might be cool... if it doesn't cause Python to become as unreadable/ambiguous as Perl! Great care would need to be taken, and I doubt they'd ever consider it.)
And that's python's fault, and not Red Hat's?
It took me some time to figure this out:
A master craftsman is one who produces work that even great craftsman admire. What makes him a master craftsman, and not just a great one? He chooses the very best tools available, and then creates new ones that do what must be done to create his masterpieces.
In other words, once someone is good enough that the very best tools available hold him back, then he is about to master his trade.
At least with Godzilla you can run screaming. You might even get away.
Barney is everywhere. (thankfully, not as much as he once was...)