My point was that initial judgements are not enough and should be avoided. Your attitudes ARE sexist(and racist). I don't mean that as an ad hominem, but rather an exhortation to reconsider your beliefs. You are blithely and falsely judging people in a animalistic and barbaric way. If you want to behave as an ethical entity, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard than doing whatever you instincts tell you to.
Remember how I mentioned you were doing YOURSELF a disservice? Refusing to investigate further before building a judgement is that disservice. It's either lazy or willfully ignorant. Either way it doesn't help you with anything.
I guess what really bothers me about your post is the way it seems to suggest that the way we tend to think is the way we should thnk. That's scary.
The moment you judge a person by any simple facet, gender or race or anything else, you are doing them and yourself a great disservice, even when you judge them positively. Human beings are individually very complex, and no characteristic, even when supported with loads of statistical evidence about that characteristic is going to inform you properly. Judge individuals as individuals, in the context you deal with them. Anything else is a major failing on your part.
This is not to impugn this study; statistics are useful and can be used in all sorts of intriguing ways. Just never let them stand in front of the individual qualities of a human being.
Because actual behavioral studies show that people are less capable of advanced problem solving when their money is on the line? Pay-for-performance actually reduces efficiency at jobs that aren't truly repetitive. I'm afraid I don't have a physical citation, as the experiment I saw was presented on a semi-recent episode of NOVA.
Tablets don't deliver novel features. They are the following: slightly less complicated to use for simple applications, and still a novelty. They are pretty much doomed in the middle term.
There isn't a "killer app" because they're basically more limited multipurpose computing devices. Every app a tablet could run, a PC could already run, and the good ones are already invented and quite refined for existing UI paradigms.
Yeah, that's true, except in as much that it's not. This system would save you all the fuel it takes to launch all your fuel. The air resistance is anything but negligible at 7 times the speed of sound. That's disregarding the propulsion inefficiency of rocket fuel compared to magnetic force. Not to mention the risk/preparation costs for a launch. All estimates I've seen of the differences are measured in orders of magnitude. While a space elevator is generally considered impossible at this time, it really would be worth the cost.
Don't be silly. Galileo had all sorts of empirical evidence, such as the positions of the planets in the night sky, his direct observation of moons orbiting jupiter, and more. And there are experiments named after Einstein because he ran them first. I think both of those individuals if alive, would be offended by your assertion that they weren't empirical.
With regard to your second point, I can't consider that anything but lazy philosophical handwringing that ignores the extraordinary success of science throughout history in order to ignore the irrelevance of philosophers to understanding in the modern world.
Are you crazy???? Hyperdiluted milk would cause them to die of starvation. Have you forgotten the law of opposites? you should only feed them hyperdiluted syrup of ipicac.
Ok, you're right, I wasn't being fair to early philosophers. I don't think that seriously undermines my point. One can conjecture philosophically valid points all day, but they aren't science, and they aren't to be taken as facts until there is empirical verification.
I love responding seriously to trolls(no joke). No, it does not explicitly explain Obama, because, as you might imagine, when voters can't use objective criteria to identify good candidates, some other mechanics still cause them to make decision, and the article and studies do not state what that is. Just because the most qualified candidate is not necessarily selected does not mean the least qualified candidate definitely will.
In fact this study makes no positive assertions at all about which candidate will win. This is a boring response. Don't be boring.
I don't really want to start an argument with an insult, but this is a terrible post. Syntactically, it goes like this:
Aphorism
Also,
Unrelated meme.
The fact that both statements are bare assertions against the data driven study from an actually famous sociologist cripples any chance of being insightful.
Your post's formulaic qualities of the structure rob it of any chance of being interesting or funny. How about you quantify or qualify the extent to which "it works". Or explain how democracy(and not just constitutional governance) "prevents the good from becoming the enemy of the perfect".
The sad part is I don't even seriously disagree with your prepositions, I just find your post to be so reprehensible in structure that I have to object.
You got 7 responses and none of them actually answer the question. They mean specifically that people cannot identify experts in the area of economics and leadership when tested. That's a pretty crippling problem, and worth discussion, even if the headline doesn't identify with enough precision the real problem(irony?).
Come from the fact that its syntax and features are set in stone, and every change either takes the w3c 10 years to establish a standard that's actually obeyed, or a massive browser feature war that leaves us with unimplemented blink tags. If the language itself could have evolved even as fast as slothful Java, it wouldn't seem so unintuitive as a first language.
The point I was really trying to get at is that the nuke carrying capability is cold-war style posturing, and won't seriously be used in any tactical way.
If it helps, they won't be armed with nukes unless we're trying to intimidate China, for whom stealing nuclear weapons would not be a top priority. If you think there's not still a cold war going on, you must be some kind of human being, and not a politician.
Regardless of the facts concerning the moon's plate tectonics, there's a lot of evidence of how dead it is in the lack of active volcanoes. Earth has 2-5 eruptions each year, the moon has none, as long as we've been observing it. Any active mantle, must therefor be deep below the crust. I've heard it said that tidally locked planetoids elsewhere in the solar system have some high energy earthquakes due to the relative forces on their near and far faces. Perhaps this is like that?
But our marketing blast algorithm is programmed to have feelings and care deeply about you. And to maximize the emotional manipulation on you. It's like having an omniscient psycho ex. What's not to like?
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that initial judgements are not enough and should be avoided. Your attitudes ARE sexist(and racist). I don't mean that as an ad hominem, but rather an exhortation to reconsider your beliefs. You are blithely and falsely judging people in a animalistic and barbaric way. If you want to behave as an ethical entity, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard than doing whatever you instincts tell you to.
Remember how I mentioned you were doing YOURSELF a disservice? Refusing to investigate further before building a judgement is that disservice. It's either lazy or willfully ignorant. Either way it doesn't help you with anything.
I guess what really bothers me about your post is the way it seems to suggest that the way we tend to think is the way we should thnk. That's scary.
The moment you judge a person by any simple facet, gender or race or anything else, you are doing them and yourself a great disservice, even when you judge them positively. Human beings are individually very complex, and no characteristic, even when supported with loads of statistical evidence about that characteristic is going to inform you properly. Judge individuals as individuals, in the context you deal with them. Anything else is a major failing on your part.
This is not to impugn this study; statistics are useful and can be used in all sorts of intriguing ways. Just never let them stand in front of the individual qualities of a human being.
Because actual behavioral studies show that people are less capable of advanced problem solving when their money is on the line? Pay-for-performance actually reduces efficiency at jobs that aren't truly repetitive. I'm afraid I don't have a physical citation, as the experiment I saw was presented on a semi-recent episode of NOVA.
Legal systems aren't any fun to ever get involved with.
Tablets don't deliver novel features. They are the following: slightly less complicated to use for simple applications, and still a novelty. They are pretty much doomed in the middle term.
There isn't a "killer app" because they're basically more limited multipurpose computing devices. Every app a tablet could run, a PC could already run, and the good ones are already invented and quite refined for existing UI paradigms.
Because that's expensive. Seriously. If they could have police everywhere, they'd not have uninsured cars on the road.
But we're finally trying to improve the lightbulb again. Thanks, energy crisis.
Yeah, that's true, except in as much that it's not. This system would save you all the fuel it takes to launch all your fuel. The air resistance is anything but negligible at 7 times the speed of sound. That's disregarding the propulsion inefficiency of rocket fuel compared to magnetic force. Not to mention the risk/preparation costs for a launch. All estimates I've seen of the differences are measured in orders of magnitude. While a space elevator is generally considered impossible at this time, it really would be worth the cost.
Don't be silly. Galileo had all sorts of empirical evidence, such as the positions of the planets in the night sky, his direct observation of moons orbiting jupiter, and more. And there are experiments named after Einstein because he ran them first. I think both of those individuals if alive, would be offended by your assertion that they weren't empirical.
With regard to your second point, I can't consider that anything but lazy philosophical handwringing that ignores the extraordinary success of science throughout history in order to ignore the irrelevance of philosophers to understanding in the modern world.
Are you crazy???? Hyperdiluted milk would cause them to die of starvation. Have you forgotten the law of opposites? you should only feed them hyperdiluted syrup of ipicac.
Ok, you're right, I wasn't being fair to early philosophers. I don't think that seriously undermines my point. One can conjecture philosophically valid points all day, but they aren't science, and they aren't to be taken as facts until there is empirical verification.
I think you're mistaking disdain for anger. You don't communicate well.
I love responding seriously to trolls(no joke). No, it does not explicitly explain Obama, because, as you might imagine, when voters can't use objective criteria to identify good candidates, some other mechanics still cause them to make decision, and the article and studies do not state what that is. Just because the most qualified candidate is not necessarily selected does not mean the least qualified candidate definitely will.
In fact this study makes no positive assertions at all about which candidate will win. This is a boring response. Don't be boring.
I don't really want to start an argument with an insult, but this is a terrible post. Syntactically, it goes like this:
The fact that both statements are bare assertions against the data driven study from an actually famous sociologist cripples any chance of being insightful.
Your post's formulaic qualities of the structure rob it of any chance of being interesting or funny. How about you quantify or qualify the extent to which "it works". Or explain how democracy(and not just constitutional governance) "prevents the good from becoming the enemy of the perfect".
The sad part is I don't even seriously disagree with your prepositions, I just find your post to be so reprehensible in structure that I have to object.
Except this is data driven and not "philosophy" from before we as a species even defined first order logic.
You got 7 responses and none of them actually answer the question. They mean specifically that people cannot identify experts in the area of economics and leadership when tested. That's a pretty crippling problem, and worth discussion, even if the headline doesn't identify with enough precision the real problem(irony?).
Come from the fact that its syntax and features are set in stone, and every change either takes the w3c 10 years to establish a standard that's actually obeyed, or a massive browser feature war that leaves us with unimplemented blink tags. If the language itself could have evolved even as fast as slothful Java, it wouldn't seem so unintuitive as a first language.
The point I was really trying to get at is that the nuke carrying capability is cold-war style posturing, and won't seriously be used in any tactical way.
If it helps, they won't be armed with nukes unless we're trying to intimidate China, for whom stealing nuclear weapons would not be a top priority. If you think there's not still a cold war going on, you must be some kind of human being, and not a politician.
How many cell phone companies have been sued for idiots using cell phones while driving? Oh yeah.
Samsung uses foxconn manufacturing. Is that bad enough?
Regardless of the facts concerning the moon's plate tectonics, there's a lot of evidence of how dead it is in the lack of active volcanoes. Earth has 2-5 eruptions each year, the moon has none, as long as we've been observing it. Any active mantle, must therefor be deep below the crust. I've heard it said that tidally locked planetoids elsewhere in the solar system have some high energy earthquakes due to the relative forces on their near and far faces. Perhaps this is like that?
dompoli sprain?
That doesn't seem impossible, especially since only the first one will matter.
But our marketing blast algorithm is programmed to have feelings and care deeply about you. And to maximize the emotional manipulation on you. It's like having an omniscient psycho ex. What's not to like?
Fact check, not that it matters: It was Ballmer who likened Linux in particular to a cancer.