Except that the book doesn't say anything meaningful about censorship. It's not like 1984, where the point is that those in power have a strong incentive to control everything those under them are exposed to, and if left unchecked would destroy the truth by the time it got to you. Burning books is just something that is done in Fahrenheit 451.
Yes, that's because people are stupid and will make the simplest possible connections they can. Book burning, historically, was about specific books. Nazis would burn books with Jewish authors, Christians would burn "satanic" books.
In Bradbury's novel, they burned ALL books, and never once because anyone disagreed with anything the books said. They burned them because of rampant anti-intellectualism, which was clearly recurring throughout the book. People burn because because they know they're supposed to, and don't care to look into the matter any further. Beatty, Montag's superior, even suggested it was common for firemen to be interested, but they'd grow out of it.
You only get "censorship" from 451 if you didn't really read it.
What really bothers me about 451 is how just about everything but the book burning turned out true. If you remove that aspect from the book, you'd have a hard time separating it from the United States of today. I can't read it without being unnerved. Immersing ourselves in our electronic entertainment rather than our lives, advertisement everywhere, complete lack of empathy as a social standard, constant, ignored wars, distaste for pedestrians, rampant anti-intellectualism, near identical suburbs everywhere.
It was a brilliant extrapolation from 1953, and I wish it wasn't so close to reality.
It's weird that you spend a couple paragraphs talking about your social graces while referring to other people in a manner the denotes that you consider them beneath you. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it reads that way.
Who said it was a singular metric. It is a metric. I suppose I have lower expectations from science, especially psychological science, but having predictive objective measures of complex systems is useful, even when they don't necessarily tell the whole story.
It measures one thing, and as we develop more useful predictive tools, IQ may eventually fall to the wayside, or possibly act in conjunction with the new discoveries. I don't the problem.
I always have mod points when I want to comment, and never when i want to mod.
Anyways, I agree. Ads have pushed me away from the 360. Advertisements are literally among my most loathed concepts. I used to be a FAN of the xbox. Not anymore.
The fact that all that is true(except the allegation that IQ testing is fundamentally racist) doesn't have any baring on the fact that what I said is also true. What's your point?
Well, yes, but, as with everything, there's a cost-benefit analysis to go through.
Just how much IT skill does that little animation with drill-downs and what-not take? How much editorial time by PhDs and other expensive hires does it take. How long until its outdated and needs to be redone? And, as I said, with upper-level focused material, the extra effort doesn't necessarily add substantial retention benefit.
Higher education consists of actual dialog, lots of words, and drawing on blackboards. Why can't I have infotainment? I'm willing to pay to have things dumbed down for me.
I know I'm being obtuse, but seriously, this stuff is too complicated for simple little animations and pictures to make substantially easier.
The scientific method is based on the idea that you create theories, present them to the world who tear the theory apart and examine it, then create better theories if they can. Putting forward a new theory that gets challenged, argued over and torn apart is not pseudoscience.
I agree entirely. I think even among people who like science, there's a lack of appreciation for the philosophy of science and the value of wrongness. In fact, even in the scientific community, we don't dedicate enough effort to assuming hypotheses might be wrong. Confirmation bias is a harsh mistress and we don't do enough to fight her.
Except for, you know, all the things the IQ predicts with strong correlation. You know, useful extrapolation, a fundamental tenant of science. Within that category of things, there's all sorts of things IQ is useful as a predictive gauge for: *Productivity of new employees without previous experience in the field *Income(up until about IQ 120, where huge diminishing returns take effect) *Crime rates and recidivism rates *Lifespan *Chance of acquiring an advanced degree *Political views
You know, other than all those major, life-impacting things, IQ doesn't predict anything.
I believe judging an individual on a single characteristic is both pointless and wrong. I just take issue with the meme that IQ is somehow irrelevant or useless as a means to understanding human intelligence. It reflects an ignorance of the observed reality we live in.
I believe the term "Pseudoscience" is reserved for "not even wrong" type things. The scientists of the era considered him incorrect in his conclusions, not pseudoscientific.
This post is generally false, not utterly, but in primary substance. 4 is pretty much true(with the caveat that the previous administration did the same thing without names on the list being approved personally by the president), but the rest require real stretches of reality to be considered true.
So, in order for your analogy to work: there must be something to contrast your watch with. Something not-created, so you can demonstrate the qualities of creation.
That inherently proves you wrong, because it acknowledges there are things without creators. It's a stupid argument reserved for stupid people.
In a world lacking religion, "atheism" wouldn't be a word. It would be literally nonsense. The word itself is a reflection of the artificial construct it rejects. It would be like using the word "landlocked" when talking to martians who had never seen earth, meaningless.
It's not the underlying philosophy that atheists have, it's just an attitude towards an expected philosophy.
I wasn't saying it was a magic bullet, I was saying it addressed a fairly basic common security problem by being an advancement in technology. But it's 20 years old now, better things have come along too.
No, it doesn't, but the original point is that the industry does nothing systematic for security. It's untrue. We actually work pretty hard as a whole on considering at least nominal security. Perfect security requires a non-existent level of perfection, so we address the problems with our software as it stands, and plan for the underlying basic security concepts that are well known and we can afford to.
I honestly belief that software engineering is natively one of the most security conscious professions. We don't ask our architects to plan buildings with a constant eye to possible flaws like we ask our programmers to. I would imagine we don't push electrical engineers through hoops to prevent hot wiring cars either. I know there are reasons for computers to be higher risk, but as far as fundamentals go, software ISN'T BAD.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the book doesn't say anything meaningful about censorship. It's not like 1984, where the point is that those in power have a strong incentive to control everything those under them are exposed to, and if left unchecked would destroy the truth by the time it got to you. Burning books is just something that is done in Fahrenheit 451.
Yes, that's because people are stupid and will make the simplest possible connections they can. Book burning, historically, was about specific books. Nazis would burn books with Jewish authors, Christians would burn "satanic" books.
In Bradbury's novel, they burned ALL books, and never once because anyone disagreed with anything the books said. They burned them because of rampant anti-intellectualism, which was clearly recurring throughout the book. People burn because because they know they're supposed to, and don't care to look into the matter any further. Beatty, Montag's superior, even suggested it was common for firemen to be interested, but they'd grow out of it.
You only get "censorship" from 451 if you didn't really read it.
What really bothers me about 451 is how just about everything but the book burning turned out true. If you remove that aspect from the book, you'd have a hard time separating it from the United States of today. I can't read it without being unnerved. Immersing ourselves in our electronic entertainment rather than our lives, advertisement everywhere, complete lack of empathy as a social standard, constant, ignored wars, distaste for pedestrians, rampant anti-intellectualism, near identical suburbs everywhere.
It was a brilliant extrapolation from 1953, and I wish it wasn't so close to reality.
It's weird that you spend a couple paragraphs talking about your social graces while referring to other people in a manner the denotes that you consider them beneath you. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it reads that way.
Can't view videos at work. Summary?
Who said it was a singular metric. It is a metric. I suppose I have lower expectations from science, especially psychological science, but having predictive objective measures of complex systems is useful, even when they don't necessarily tell the whole story.
It measures one thing, and as we develop more useful predictive tools, IQ may eventually fall to the wayside, or possibly act in conjunction with the new discoveries. I don't the problem.
I can't remember the last book review that wasn't 9/10.
I always have mod points when I want to comment, and never when i want to mod.
Anyways, I agree. Ads have pushed me away from the 360. Advertisements are literally among my most loathed concepts. I used to be a FAN of the xbox. Not anymore.
The fact that all that is true(except the allegation that IQ testing is fundamentally racist) doesn't have any baring on the fact that what I said is also true. What's your point?
Well, 120 is one standard deviation, so I suppose I believe that.
Well, yes, but, as with everything, there's a cost-benefit analysis to go through.
Just how much IT skill does that little animation with drill-downs and what-not take? How much editorial time by PhDs and other expensive hires does it take. How long until its outdated and needs to be redone? And, as I said, with upper-level focused material, the extra effort doesn't necessarily add substantial retention benefit.
Higher education consists of actual dialog, lots of words, and drawing on blackboards. Why can't I have infotainment? I'm willing to pay to have things dumbed down for me.
I know I'm being obtuse, but seriously, this stuff is too complicated for simple little animations and pictures to make substantially easier.
The scientific method is based on the idea that you create theories, present them to the world who tear the theory apart and examine it, then create better theories if they can. Putting forward a new theory that gets challenged, argued over and torn apart is not pseudoscience.
I agree entirely. I think even among people who like science, there's a lack of appreciation for the philosophy of science and the value of wrongness. In fact, even in the scientific community, we don't dedicate enough effort to assuming hypotheses might be wrong. Confirmation bias is a harsh mistress and we don't do enough to fight her.
Except for, you know, all the things the IQ predicts with strong correlation. You know, useful extrapolation, a fundamental tenant of science. Within that category of things, there's all sorts of things IQ is useful as a predictive gauge for:
*Productivity of new employees without previous experience in the field
*Income(up until about IQ 120, where huge diminishing returns take effect)
*Crime rates and recidivism rates
*Lifespan
*Chance of acquiring an advanced degree
*Political views
You know, other than all those major, life-impacting things, IQ doesn't predict anything.
I believe judging an individual on a single characteristic is both pointless and wrong. I just take issue with the meme that IQ is somehow irrelevant or useless as a means to understanding human intelligence. It reflects an ignorance of the observed reality we live in.
I believe the term "Pseudoscience" is reserved for "not even wrong" type things. The scientists of the era considered him incorrect in his conclusions, not pseudoscientific.
This post is generally false, not utterly, but in primary substance. 4 is pretty much true(with the caveat that the previous administration did the same thing without names on the list being approved personally by the president), but the rest require real stretches of reality to be considered true.
Even the companies not in the tech sector I've worked for have had massively larger IT budgets than legal budgets.
So, in order for your analogy to work: there must be something to contrast your watch with. Something not-created, so you can demonstrate the qualities of creation.
That inherently proves you wrong, because it acknowledges there are things without creators. It's a stupid argument reserved for stupid people.
No, actually the numbers are more like 90-95%. Dunning-Kruger effect and all.
It has more to do with most of the world's muslim population living in poor and poorly educated areas.
Only as of recently, and the current Pope seems like the kind to reverse that position.
The way I like to present that is this:
In a world lacking religion, "atheism" wouldn't be a word. It would be literally nonsense. The word itself is a reflection of the artificial construct it rejects. It would be like using the word "landlocked" when talking to martians who had never seen earth, meaningless.
It's not the underlying philosophy that atheists have, it's just an attitude towards an expected philosophy.
I wasn't saying it was a magic bullet, I was saying it addressed a fairly basic common security problem by being an advancement in technology. But it's 20 years old now, better things have come along too.
That's the ticket to bolstering your failing shopping program, get just a little more blood from that stone.
No, it doesn't, but the original point is that the industry does nothing systematic for security. It's untrue. We actually work pretty hard as a whole on considering at least nominal security. Perfect security requires a non-existent level of perfection, so we address the problems with our software as it stands, and plan for the underlying basic security concepts that are well known and we can afford to.
I honestly belief that software engineering is natively one of the most security conscious professions. We don't ask our architects to plan buildings with a constant eye to possible flaws like we ask our programmers to. I would imagine we don't push electrical engineers through hoops to prevent hot wiring cars either. I know there are reasons for computers to be higher risk, but as far as fundamentals go, software ISN'T BAD.