Yea I was surprised to see a canvas-heavy app I'm writing is actually running faster in IE11 than in Chrome. My worldview was shattered and I was left despondent, my only choice - to sadly pick up the pieces and cut myself with them. These are my last words, my dying hope - that others will see my plight and be warned.
It's incredibly insightful and not only that but also informative at the same time. I'd say the ratio is about 50% informative, and 50% insightful, because it is equal parts informative and insightful - that is, it's about the same proportion (or perhaps the exact same proportion) informative as it is insightful. That's because it gives information - about the question the article is asking, as well as the general principle by which the answer is derived (i.e. Betteridge's Law) - and it's also insightful, because it provides insight into the subject matter of the article, as well as insight into the general principle by which the answer is derived (i.e. that very same aforementioned law known as Betteridge's Law).
Also, utensils. I don't want to have to go all the way to the fucking kitchen when I get delivery, sit at my desk, and realized they didn't include the fucking fork and knife.
An acceptable premise. Prove it. All you've done so far is stated that that which is not observable cannot be observed.
Yes. It is a tautology so it needs no proof. I think you don't get the full depth of what it really means, though. It means that literally nothing that can't be observed can ever factor into any sort of reasoning or consideration in any field or endeavor anywhere whatsoever, simply because it has literally zero effect on anything that we might try to do. If something has a non-zero effect then it is observable by that very effect. Of course it's possible there are things we cannot observe now that we might be able to observe later.
Please keep in mind that the universe could well support coterminous realities.
These are completely inconsequential if they cannot be observed, because that means they have literally zero effect on our universe - there is simply no way to tell whether they exist or not and even if they do there's absolutely no interaction with our universe whatsoever.
Please note that "can only observe indirect effects" counts as "observable". If there's a coterminous reality which only has indirect effects on our own, then it is observable, and we can reason it and take it into consideration. But if there's a coterminous reality which has zero effect on our own then it might as well not exist for all it matters to us. Further there is no way to determine whether it exists. It's Russel's teapot only even more so. In any case there would be no convincing argument to take it into account in any way whatsoever.
How about the two-slit experiment, which proves that there exist things that are not observable.
Does it really? How so?
Even "observe the core of the sun" or even "observe the mantle the earth" are effectively only observable indirectly.
Yes, which means it is observable - see above.
We can observe that the Ukranians hate their president. Measure it objectively. Quantify hate so that it can be expressed in numeric units. How many kiloHitlers are directed at Viktor Yanukovych?
Hmm that's a good question. I think it's a narrow definition of 'measure' though. What do you base your conclusion that Ukranians hate their president on? That is what you are measuring. You do it instinctively and intuitively by watching facial expressions, perhaps. This is of course inaccurate and flawed. Maybe we haven't figured out a good objective measure yet - that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Of course. That's the point. The point isn't that science is bad, or that it has no value, or that every day we don't learn more than we did yesterday. The point is that the human condition makes human science fundamentally flawed; it's not exempt just because it's science. The point is that acting like science is the only possible truth (rather than merely one of the better ones) when we know that humans are so fundamentally flawed is absurd. That authority you think science gives you to describe the universe? It doesn't. Don't be angry about it. Be skeptical, even of so-called "established truths". They're proven false more often than you'd think.
As I said, your point #3 applies equally well to anything. No information is gained by stating it about science. It is in no way a fact which can be used to justify considering something other than science over and above science itself, because it applies to the exact same extent to anything that isn't science as well. I do agree about a supposed scientific authority, though. Science is not an authority so much as a body of knowledge which is constantly being updated. Misunderstanding this is indeed not ideal.
One problem I can think of is selective enforcement. If so many companies collude, then you can't possibly indict them all. Consider traffic violations as an analogy. Cops acknowledge that they can follow any driver for a few minutes and eventually they will perform a traffic infraction that they can legally pull the driver over for. Since everyone is guilty, this means that the cops can choose whom to pursue based on their own whims. Analogously, whatever agency is responsible for investigating collusion can choose which companies to pursue - perhaps at the request of a company's competitors? Further there's the issue of estimated lost wages. How could this be accurately determined? This makes me think of the RIAA attempting to figure out how much money they lost due to piracy.
Also, to whom would the 200% total estimated lost wages be paid out to? Employees that they didn't hire? Their own employees which they wouldn't have given raises to anyway? Employees they hired recently? Then employees would have incentives to pursue action against the company that has hired them even if there isn't collusion - compare to discrimination lawsuits. Would it be paid to the agency itself? Then this would just become another elaborate tax that companies would have to avoid by donating money to the government in some form or another. In any case the cost of business just went up since once you're large enough, you'll need extra lawyers on retainer to handle this possibility. Higher cost of business means less money for wages and higher prices for consumers.
Fix the fucking manual? Fixed that for manual? First Time Film Makers? Florida Thoroughbred Farm Managers? I don't understand. WTF R U TRYING TO SAY MAN.
Sure, you only want knuckleheads with enough influence with the right people (i.e. certain government officials) to be able to tear up the streets. But this hardly seems the most efficient way to determine who should be allowed to do what, case in point: sucky internet in the US.
I don't see foreign workers leading to lower wages being a bad thing. It means cost of labor goes down. The companies, consumers, and foreign workers benefit, while the people working in that field who had higher wages before are the only ones who get hurt. The workers being foreign doesn't even factor into it. It's almost exactly the same as if we created a computer to do the work for 30% cheaper. It just means the market is getting more efficient at accomplishing that type of labor, which is exactly what leads to more wealth for everybody - imagine what it'd be like if we were as efficient at growing food now as we were 200 years ago.
- Conclusion: The collusion between employers is costing the employees at least $10K/year.
You cut out my next sentence: "The more companies do this the more the wages are brought to their proper level." Yes, in the short term there are "damages", but it will get corrected sooner rather than later without extra regulation. On the other hand, the extra regulation will stick around long after the initial problem is patched up, and has a good chance of negatively impacting things down the line. There's always unintended consequences to regulation.
This just proves my point. The reason US internet sucks isn't because of free-market collusion, it's because ISPs are a government-enforced monopoly/oligopoly. I can't just start an ISP and lay down lines, I have to make deals with the local government to allow me to put wires in.
1. That which cannot be observed by definition cannot affect our universe, so it is inconsequential. If it has an effect on our universe - which includes humans and human thoughts and feelings etc. - then it is observable.
2. This is just another way of saying the 1st, unless you propose that there are observable things that are not measurable.
3. This is true, but that's a fundamental limitation on all human endeavours, not just science. It applies equally well to anything, including religion, so practically speaking, no information is gained by stating this about science.
When I left HP I went to work for Fujitsu- they didn't participate in the salary fixing- and instantly got 40% pay increase and kept my vacation time.
This is why this type of collusion is really a non-issue. It is not the case that every single company participates in the collusion. The ones that don't, benefit, and eventually employees will move over to them. At some point the colluding companies will realize they are being hurt and stop the practices. No extra regulation is needed to prevent the free market (which does temporarily include collusion among willing participants) to self-adjust.
Noooooooo no no no no. In a free market i.e. one without regulation, collusion certainly CAN and DOES happen. However, by the nature of collusion - where each participant has incentives to screw over the other participants, or non-participants can take advantage of the collusion - it is an unstable, temporary arrangement, and will fall apart sooner rather than later. In this example, say that the employees of the colluding companies are making $100k/year whereas they are really worth $120k/year. Non-colluding companies can now easily poach these employees by offering them, say, $110k/year. The more companies do this the more the wages are brought to their proper level.
According to the article, moves below a certain number of stones are looked up in a 4-terabyte database, and moves with a certain number of stones require 15-20 seconds of computation on the supercomputer. So, definitely the algorithm as-is isn't learnable by a human.. though the human could wear some google glasses that hooks up to the supercomputer of course.
This is a good reason to be skeptical of the government, but not of global warming per se. It's entirely possible they are using legitimate science (the science of climate change) to selfishly further their own goals (more tax and more control).
Well maybe this is my chance to rescue someone! To disabuse them of the notion that Buddhism offers the solution to the existential crisis that is life. For samsara does not only mean the endless cycle of rebirth but is equivalent to the endless cycle of suffering - for birth indeed in and of itself is considered suffering in Buddhist terms. An endless cycle of birth (and thus suffering), with the only way out being to stop being born - to stop rebirth in its tracks and to no longer exist in this world. Truly the solution would be suicide if only that option didn't lead one to getting reborn again.
Yet is this quite satisfying? Is any form of existence truly suffering? I say not. I say life is intrinsically pleasant and enjoyable, and it is only the rudimentary animal self blown out of all proportion that leads us to think it's all pain and suffering. Drop this notion, contemplate what it truly means to be alive - and one can find a peaceful ambiance all about, delightful in and of its very self. This truly is the answer to the problem of humanity's suffering. Follow it to its end and one finds Ultimate Fulfillment - here and now, not as a result of a hoary altered state of consciousness which deludes one into thinking that one doesn't really exist - for one does, albeit as a flesh and blood body only.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea I was surprised to see a canvas-heavy app I'm writing is actually running faster in IE11 than in Chrome. My worldview was shattered and I was left despondent, my only choice - to sadly pick up the pieces and cut myself with them. These are my last words, my dying hope - that others will see my plight and be warned.
It's incredibly insightful and not only that but also informative at the same time. I'd say the ratio is about 50% informative, and 50% insightful, because it is equal parts informative and insightful - that is, it's about the same proportion (or perhaps the exact same proportion) informative as it is insightful. That's because it gives information - about the question the article is asking, as well as the general principle by which the answer is derived (i.e. Betteridge's Law) - and it's also insightful, because it provides insight into the subject matter of the article, as well as insight into the general principle by which the answer is derived (i.e. that very same aforementioned law known as Betteridge's Law).
no!
No look at the zoomed-in exhibit B. You clearly see regular patterns. These must be a sign of life.
You could try using temporary credit card numbers for all online purchases. Looks like citibank provides this service.
I can wait, I just don't want to have to move.
Also, utensils. I don't want to have to go all the way to the fucking kitchen when I get delivery, sit at my desk, and realized they didn't include the fucking fork and knife.
+1 funny
An acceptable premise. Prove it. All you've done so far is stated that that which is not observable cannot be observed.
Yes. It is a tautology so it needs no proof. I think you don't get the full depth of what it really means, though. It means that literally nothing that can't be observed can ever factor into any sort of reasoning or consideration in any field or endeavor anywhere whatsoever, simply because it has literally zero effect on anything that we might try to do. If something has a non-zero effect then it is observable by that very effect. Of course it's possible there are things we cannot observe now that we might be able to observe later.
Please keep in mind that the universe could well support coterminous realities.
These are completely inconsequential if they cannot be observed, because that means they have literally zero effect on our universe - there is simply no way to tell whether they exist or not and even if they do there's absolutely no interaction with our universe whatsoever.
Please note that "can only observe indirect effects" counts as "observable". If there's a coterminous reality which only has indirect effects on our own, then it is observable, and we can reason it and take it into consideration. But if there's a coterminous reality which has zero effect on our own then it might as well not exist for all it matters to us. Further there is no way to determine whether it exists. It's Russel's teapot only even more so. In any case there would be no convincing argument to take it into account in any way whatsoever.
How about the two-slit experiment, which proves that there exist things that are not observable.
Does it really? How so?
Even "observe the core of the sun" or even "observe the mantle the earth" are effectively only observable indirectly.
Yes, which means it is observable - see above.
We can observe that the Ukranians hate their president. Measure it objectively. Quantify hate so that it can be expressed in numeric units. How many kiloHitlers are directed at Viktor Yanukovych?
Hmm that's a good question. I think it's a narrow definition of 'measure' though. What do you base your conclusion that Ukranians hate their president on? That is what you are measuring. You do it instinctively and intuitively by watching facial expressions, perhaps. This is of course inaccurate and flawed. Maybe we haven't figured out a good objective measure yet - that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Of course. That's the point. The point isn't that science is bad, or that it has no value, or that every day we don't learn more than we did yesterday. The point is that the human condition makes human science fundamentally flawed; it's not exempt just because it's science. The point is that acting like science is the only possible truth (rather than merely one of the better ones) when we know that humans are so fundamentally flawed is absurd. That authority you think science gives you to describe the universe? It doesn't. Don't be angry about it. Be skeptical, even of so-called "established truths". They're proven false more often than you'd think.
As I said, your point #3 applies equally well to anything. No information is gained by stating it about science. It is in no way a fact which can be used to justify considering something other than science over and above science itself, because it applies to the exact same extent to anything that isn't science as well. I do agree about a supposed scientific authority, though. Science is not an authority so much as a body of knowledge which is constantly being updated. Misunderstanding this is indeed not ideal.
Oh gotcha. Yes that makes sense - so that was indeed a good example.
One problem I can think of is selective enforcement. If so many companies collude, then you can't possibly indict them all. Consider traffic violations as an analogy. Cops acknowledge that they can follow any driver for a few minutes and eventually they will perform a traffic infraction that they can legally pull the driver over for. Since everyone is guilty, this means that the cops can choose whom to pursue based on their own whims. Analogously, whatever agency is responsible for investigating collusion can choose which companies to pursue - perhaps at the request of a company's competitors? Further there's the issue of estimated lost wages. How could this be accurately determined? This makes me think of the RIAA attempting to figure out how much money they lost due to piracy.
Also, to whom would the 200% total estimated lost wages be paid out to? Employees that they didn't hire? Their own employees which they wouldn't have given raises to anyway? Employees they hired recently? Then employees would have incentives to pursue action against the company that has hired them even if there isn't collusion - compare to discrimination lawsuits. Would it be paid to the agency itself? Then this would just become another elaborate tax that companies would have to avoid by donating money to the government in some form or another. In any case the cost of business just went up since once you're large enough, you'll need extra lawyers on retainer to handle this possibility. Higher cost of business means less money for wages and higher prices for consumers.
Fix the fucking manual? Fixed that for manual? First Time Film Makers? Florida Thoroughbred Farm Managers? I don't understand. WTF R U TRYING TO SAY MAN.
Sure, you only want knuckleheads with enough influence with the right people (i.e. certain government officials) to be able to tear up the streets. But this hardly seems the most efficient way to determine who should be allowed to do what, case in point: sucky internet in the US.
What was it initially intended for?
I don't see foreign workers leading to lower wages being a bad thing. It means cost of labor goes down. The companies, consumers, and foreign workers benefit, while the people working in that field who had higher wages before are the only ones who get hurt. The workers being foreign doesn't even factor into it. It's almost exactly the same as if we created a computer to do the work for 30% cheaper. It just means the market is getting more efficient at accomplishing that type of labor, which is exactly what leads to more wealth for everybody - imagine what it'd be like if we were as efficient at growing food now as we were 200 years ago.
- Conclusion: The collusion between employers is costing the employees at least $10K/year.
You cut out my next sentence: "The more companies do this the more the wages are brought to their proper level." Yes, in the short term there are "damages", but it will get corrected sooner rather than later without extra regulation. On the other hand, the extra regulation will stick around long after the initial problem is patched up, and has a good chance of negatively impacting things down the line. There's always unintended consequences to regulation.
This just proves my point. The reason US internet sucks isn't because of free-market collusion, it's because ISPs are a government-enforced monopoly/oligopoly. I can't just start an ISP and lay down lines, I have to make deals with the local government to allow me to put wires in.
1. That which cannot be observed by definition cannot affect our universe, so it is inconsequential. If it has an effect on our universe - which includes humans and human thoughts and feelings etc. - then it is observable.
2. This is just another way of saying the 1st, unless you propose that there are observable things that are not measurable.
3. This is true, but that's a fundamental limitation on all human endeavours, not just science. It applies equally well to anything, including religion, so practically speaking, no information is gained by stating this about science.
When I left HP I went to work for Fujitsu- they didn't participate in the salary fixing- and instantly got 40% pay increase and kept my vacation time.
This is why this type of collusion is really a non-issue. It is not the case that every single company participates in the collusion. The ones that don't, benefit, and eventually employees will move over to them. At some point the colluding companies will realize they are being hurt and stop the practices. No extra regulation is needed to prevent the free market (which does temporarily include collusion among willing participants) to self-adjust.
Noooooooo no no no no. In a free market i.e. one without regulation, collusion certainly CAN and DOES happen. However, by the nature of collusion - where each participant has incentives to screw over the other participants, or non-participants can take advantage of the collusion - it is an unstable, temporary arrangement, and will fall apart sooner rather than later. In this example, say that the employees of the colluding companies are making $100k/year whereas they are really worth $120k/year. Non-colluding companies can now easily poach these employees by offering them, say, $110k/year. The more companies do this the more the wages are brought to their proper level.
According to the article, moves below a certain number of stones are looked up in a 4-terabyte database, and moves with a certain number of stones require 15-20 seconds of computation on the supercomputer. So, definitely the algorithm as-is isn't learnable by a human.. though the human could wear some google glasses that hooks up to the supercomputer of course.
Supplicating white knight is also being quite manipulative. What, you think if you're nice you deserve to get a chick?
Where do you see that? According to their site, one bottle has 41g of carbs, only 18g of which are sugar (for the dark chocolate one).
What I wonder is - how exactly is this different from something like Ensure, which you can live on drinking nothing but?
This is a good reason to be skeptical of the government, but not of global warming per se. It's entirely possible they are using legitimate science (the science of climate change) to selfishly further their own goals (more tax and more control).
Well maybe this is my chance to rescue someone! To disabuse them of the notion that Buddhism offers the solution to the existential crisis that is life. For samsara does not only mean the endless cycle of rebirth but is equivalent to the endless cycle of suffering - for birth indeed in and of itself is considered suffering in Buddhist terms. An endless cycle of birth (and thus suffering), with the only way out being to stop being born - to stop rebirth in its tracks and to no longer exist in this world. Truly the solution would be suicide if only that option didn't lead one to getting reborn again.
Yet is this quite satisfying? Is any form of existence truly suffering? I say not. I say life is intrinsically pleasant and enjoyable, and it is only the rudimentary animal self blown out of all proportion that leads us to think it's all pain and suffering. Drop this notion, contemplate what it truly means to be alive - and one can find a peaceful ambiance all about, delightful in and of its very self. This truly is the answer to the problem of humanity's suffering. Follow it to its end and one finds Ultimate Fulfillment - here and now, not as a result of a hoary altered state of consciousness which deludes one into thinking that one doesn't really exist - for one does, albeit as a flesh and blood body only.