On what basis do you claim we should withhold deserved rewards from people? I know you haven't actually made that claim, but it all falls within the scope of justice. On what basis do you claim we should routinely withhold deserved punishments?
Punishments are in general negative, and rewards are positive. If we want to maximize happiness/contentment/well-being (which isn't a zero-sum game of course), then we should discourage punishment which is basically 'revenge' disquised.
The idea you propose is to allow people to live without regard to causality, which is to say, without regard to reality. That's ok, by the way, right up until other people have to bear the negative consequences of your actions.
As I said before, it's not going to make things better because those who commit stupid crimes would do so anyway. Punishing them degrades us and them. It would be sufficient for society to frown upon their actions, and plea with them not to do so (before and after the crime). But to punish them encourages a cycle of hate.
Anything else is simply making the victims take the consequences of someone else's evil,
No the victim would be traumatized either way. Encouraging people to forgive the offender would be far more constructive, otherwise the victim has the anguish of the crime itself, *and* of the bitter resentment they feel towards the offender. Don't you agree? No, I'm not a christian in case you ask.
I agree with you apart from one major thing. One should be against the so-called 'justice' bit as well. Society (whether individuals or the courts) should strive to better people, educate them, feel sorry for these people, yes even respect them as human beings. Even if they do awful things, it's not necessarily going to do any good to simply lock them up.
The exception as I said earlier is if the 'locking up' part is because the amount of misery the criminal would otherwise cause (to others) by not being locked up outweighs the amount of misery to the criminal. I'm not so sure about the notion of "setting an example to others", because I've often heard how the threat of punishment does nothing to help prevent criminals doing it in the first place.
This is a terrible crime against society, I agree, and the punishment should be banishment.
And that too would undo everything? You're more reasonable than the GP, but the logical progression would be to inflict no harm on even these (possibly corrupt) judges - the best would be to sack them maybe so they can't cause any more misery in that field. Whatever action is chosen as 'punishment' should never be done for the reason of revenge, but instead as a preventative measure for others not to follow their path.
How about if the topic is mathematics, and the level is pre-PhD / pre-post graduate?
Common, it may not be up to scratch on all topics yet, but look at the larger picture say in 200 years, where Wikipedia could really be used as a genuine source of citation, at least on certain topics for less advanced levels of research.
Ah that all sounds fine then. Yep, I did mean % rather than $. And also I didn't just mean integer percents, but 'floating' so that 16777216 colours or more could be allowed.:)
By the way, I'm guessing OLED will solve these problems, where higher gamut/brightness really will always be a good thing.
Fair enough. I feared something like that was going on.
I must admit I don't like the sound of the 10 bit thing - I'm guessing those extra 2 bits are not used in the normal way (i.e. for extra colours), but seem to be some kind of kludge to accommodate different computers/monitors?
If that is true, then it would be far more preferable to attempt to unify/standardize, with at most a single setting per image to determine the say... gamma maybe (but even that should disappear if wel all stuck to a standard).
Is this correct - ideally I'd just like 0-100$ for each R, G, & B to describe an image without any of the scary kludges/bandaids that seem to be appearing.
Er isn't more brightness and gamut a good thing for pictures that INTEND those qualities? There's always the brightness and saturation knobs for you to turn down if need be.
A display which has a higher gamut will always be able to adjust to a lower gamut, while the reverse is not true. Same thing with brightness.
You probably know all this, but it's important to make the point anyway.
Ugh, input lagging. To me, this would be an even worse issue than blurring or flicker. Lagging (at least above 30ms) means a 'soupy' cursor, and an end to games which require quick reactions.
I hope this becomes another stat to put on advertising. It's very hard to see unless you hook up a computer and do some testing, so joe public won't care...:(
It's exactly this kind of thing which will make OLED technology win in the end. All the problems associated with LCD (response time, blurring, lagging, contrast levels) will be gone in an instant.
I've always found this topic curious. As much as open source, no software patents or an anti-RIAA stance, I would have expected something like this to be avidly supported by the vast majority of us.
In this latest story, it would seem like the tide is gradually turning as people begin to realise the enormous potential benefits something like this can bring.
Google sums up the change on their web site Free the Airwaves. From what I gather, devices will only be able to be sold as long as they keep to a restricted set of wavelengths, so there shouldn't be any worry about interference.
In theory, it should allow cheaper wifi, broadband, free mobile phone calls (as they would communicate directly with each other, at least over smaller distances, and much further afield too if smaller entrepreneurial setups start to link together), and healthy competition in the overall communication sector.
We've had extortionate prices for mobile calls/texts for WAY too long. It's time to put an end to the nonsense.
If you replace 'boring' with 'bevelled' or 'streamlined', and replace 'grey' with 'unobtrusive, letting the programs add the colour', then that would make more sense.
Otherwise I agree:) Seriously, are they taking the classic skin out of windows? (shudder).
I think that thing that often makes people want to slot into the 'relativistic' viewpoint is that they think with absolutism, there can't be change of behaviours even if circumstances are different.
Of course that's not true, the best course of action depends on the surroundings and circumstances etc., and we can still call that 'absolutism'.
In this sense, everyone 'should' agree that there's actions for a scenario where one might be called the 'best course of action' (or is some cases very close shaves, where there's not much to choose between them), but whereby that best course would change according to the background/circumstances.
Given the friendly/community type nature at Google, I would be very surprised if someone got fired even if one person was fully responsible. It's not bugs can always be eliminated very easily anyway.
40w would be quite bright, but you would soon get used to it. I have a giant 85w CFL in my living room, and it is much better than the old 20w CFL, but even that's a far cry from the kind of illumination you get during daylight, or in some shops.
In the end, I plumped for a 1 KW halogen floodlight. It's much better, but I still want more:)
That's not ILED:) The LEDs in that just act as a backlight - a very different beast. ILED TVs would emit their own light with each ILED as an individual pixel.
Good point, but I bet the 'I' will stick more and more in the future, just as a buzzword for marketing, and also that we can say both OLED and ILED are types of LED.
This is great news not just for lighting, but also potentially for ILED TVs (basically LED - the "I" stands for inorganic. It would be simpler than even OLED, and the lifetime would be amazing of course.
Using two or more references (preferably all good quality) will obviously help to remove bias from the equation. Even top quality authors can make mistakes, or have opinion bias though, which is the reasoning behind the idea of multiple references.
As for my point about referencing of two encyclopedias; If they both themselves make a particular statement which references from good quality AND different sources, then they are not simply repeating each other. It would be highly unlikely in such a case that they would both be misinterpreting the info, especially as they are from different sources.
You may say go to the original source in each case, but often A: that's not possible, or B: the encyclopedia makes a simple point/fact that convinces one that it would have been hard for the encyclopedia to translate inaccurately from the original source. Combine this with another encyclopedia (or even better, another completely different original source), and the result is better than one authoritative source alone.
Finally, it would seem to me that Wikipedia's math section is held in very high regard, even now. I'm not going to say it's a good thing to reference only that, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 10-100 years, it becomes so nigh on perfect that going to another source will be a relative waste of time, at least for the more basic, pre-PHD level.
Teacher's shouldn't accept wikipedia as a source, for the same reasons they shouldn't accept other Encyclopedias.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Referencing to a non-encyclopedic source *and* Wikipedia is much better than the traditional source alone. Yes, the meatspace/research source is probably more trustworthy/up to date, but a second verification helps not just add to the reliability of a given statement, but has an effect of almost multiplying the reliability.
It's even arguable that referencing two encyclopedias for a statement (providing they support each other) is better than the one 'traditional' source.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the slow response...
On what basis do you claim we should withhold deserved rewards from people? I know you haven't actually made that claim, but it all falls within the scope of justice. On what basis do you claim we should routinely withhold deserved punishments?
Punishments are in general negative, and rewards are positive. If we want to maximize happiness/contentment/well-being (which isn't a zero-sum game of course), then we should discourage punishment which is basically 'revenge' disquised.
The idea you propose is to allow people to live without regard to causality, which is to say, without regard to reality. That's ok, by the way, right up until other people have to bear the negative consequences of your actions.
As I said before, it's not going to make things better because those who commit stupid crimes would do so anyway. Punishing them degrades us and them. It would be sufficient for society to frown upon their actions, and plea with them not to do so (before and after the crime). But to punish them encourages a cycle of hate.
Anything else is simply making the victims take the consequences of someone else's evil,
No the victim would be traumatized either way. Encouraging people to forgive the offender would be far more constructive, otherwise the victim has the anguish of the crime itself, *and* of the bitter resentment they feel towards the offender. Don't you agree? No, I'm not a christian in case you ask.
I agree with you apart from one major thing. One should be against the so-called 'justice' bit as well. Society (whether individuals or the courts) should strive to better people, educate them, feel sorry for these people, yes even respect them as human beings. Even if they do awful things, it's not necessarily going to do any good to simply lock them up.
The exception as I said earlier is if the 'locking up' part is because the amount of misery the criminal would otherwise cause (to others) by not being locked up outweighs the amount of misery to the criminal. I'm not so sure about the notion of "setting an example to others", because I've often heard how the threat of punishment does nothing to help prevent criminals doing it in the first place.
This is a terrible crime against society, I agree, and the punishment should be banishment.
And that too would undo everything? You're more reasonable than the GP, but the logical progression would be to inflict no harm on even these (possibly corrupt) judges - the best would be to sack them maybe so they can't cause any more misery in that field. Whatever action is chosen as 'punishment' should never be done for the reason of revenge, but instead as a preventative measure for others not to follow their path.
How did that argument go in the end? I hope you won...
How about if the topic is mathematics, and the level is pre-PhD / pre-post graduate?
Common, it may not be up to scratch on all topics yet, but look at the larger picture say in 200 years, where Wikipedia could really be used as a genuine source of citation, at least on certain topics for less advanced levels of research.
Why is it like that? Why can't these things be software controlled?
I'd like the option. I'm not sure how gracefully this new fangled probability drive 'degrades' to precision computing...
Well you'd certainly get a link from me if you did go ahead.
Ah that all sounds fine then. Yep, I did mean % rather than $. And also I didn't just mean integer percents, but 'floating' so that 16777216 colours or more could be allowed. :)
By the way, I'm guessing OLED will solve these problems, where higher gamut/brightness really will always be a good thing.
Fair enough. I feared something like that was going on.
I must admit I don't like the sound of the 10 bit thing - I'm guessing those extra 2 bits are not used in the normal way (i.e. for extra colours), but seem to be some kind of kludge to accommodate different computers/monitors?
If that is true, then it would be far more preferable to attempt to unify/standardize, with at most a single setting per image to determine the say... gamma maybe (but even that should disappear if wel all stuck to a standard).
Is this correct - ideally I'd just like 0-100$ for each R, G, & B to describe an image without any of the scary kludges/bandaids that seem to be appearing.
Er isn't more brightness and gamut a good thing for pictures that INTEND those qualities? There's always the brightness and saturation knobs for you to turn down if need be.
A display which has a higher gamut will always be able to adjust to a lower gamut, while the reverse is not true. Same thing with brightness.
You probably know all this, but it's important to make the point anyway.
Ugh, input lagging. To me, this would be an even worse issue than blurring or flicker. Lagging (at least above 30ms) means a 'soupy' cursor, and an end to games which require quick reactions.
I hope this becomes another stat to put on advertising. It's very hard to see unless you hook up a computer and do some testing, so joe public won't care... :(
It's exactly this kind of thing which will make OLED technology win in the end. All the problems associated with LCD (response time, blurring, lagging, contrast levels) will be gone in an instant.
I've always found this topic curious. As much as open source, no software patents or an anti-RIAA stance, I would have expected something like this to be avidly supported by the vast majority of us.
In this latest story, it would seem like the tide is gradually turning as people begin to realise the enormous potential benefits something like this can bring.
Google sums up the change on their web site Free the Airwaves. From what I gather, devices will only be able to be sold as long as they keep to a restricted set of wavelengths, so there shouldn't be any worry about interference.
In theory, it should allow cheaper wifi, broadband, free mobile phone calls (as they would communicate directly with each other, at least over smaller distances, and much further afield too if smaller entrepreneurial setups start to link together), and healthy competition in the overall communication sector.
We've had extortionate prices for mobile calls/texts for WAY too long. It's time to put an end to the nonsense.
If you replace 'boring' with 'bevelled' or 'streamlined', and replace 'grey' with 'unobtrusive, letting the programs add the colour', then that would make more sense.
Otherwise I agree :) Seriously, are they taking the classic skin out of windows? (shudder).
I think that thing that often makes people want to slot into the 'relativistic' viewpoint is that they think with absolutism, there can't be change of behaviours even if circumstances are different.
Of course that's not true, the best course of action depends on the surroundings and circumstances etc., and we can still call that 'absolutism'.
In this sense, everyone 'should' agree that there's actions for a scenario where one might be called the 'best course of action' (or is some cases very close shaves, where there's not much to choose between them), but whereby that best course would change according to the background/circumstances.
Given the friendly/community type nature at Google, I would be very surprised if someone got fired even if one person was fully responsible. It's not bugs can always be eliminated very easily anyway.
40w would be quite bright, but you would soon get used to it. I have a giant 85w CFL in my living room, and it is much better than the old 20w CFL, but even that's a far cry from the kind of illumination you get during daylight, or in some shops.
In the end, I plumped for a 1 KW halogen floodlight. It's much better, but I still want more :)
That's not ILED :)
The LEDs in that just act as a backlight - a very different beast. ILED TVs would emit their own light with each ILED as an individual pixel.
Good point, but I bet the 'I' will stick more and more in the future, just as a buzzword for marketing, and also that we can say both OLED and ILED are types of LED.
This is great news not just for lighting, but also potentially for ILED TVs (basically LED - the "I" stands for inorganic. It would be simpler than even OLED, and the lifetime would be amazing of course.
All well and good, but unfortunately the graph on the web site is truncated. Here is the real version: http://www.skytopia.com/stuff/graph.png
But then would it not be a good idea to simply force the manufacturers to label the power usage by law on each set?
Using two or more references (preferably all good quality) will obviously help to remove bias from the equation. Even top quality authors can make mistakes, or have opinion bias though, which is the reasoning behind the idea of multiple references.
As for my point about referencing of two encyclopedias; If they both themselves make a particular statement which references from good quality AND different sources, then they are not simply repeating each other. It would be highly unlikely in such a case that they would both be misinterpreting the info, especially as they are from different sources.
You may say go to the original source in each case, but often A: that's not possible, or B: the encyclopedia makes a simple point/fact that convinces one that it would have been hard for the encyclopedia to translate inaccurately from the original source. Combine this with another encyclopedia (or even better, another completely different original source), and the result is better than one authoritative source alone.
Finally, it would seem to me that Wikipedia's math section is held in very high regard, even now. I'm not going to say it's a good thing to reference only that, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 10-100 years, it becomes so nigh on perfect that going to another source will be a relative waste of time, at least for the more basic, pre-PHD level.
Teacher's shouldn't accept wikipedia as a source, for the same reasons they shouldn't accept other Encyclopedias.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Referencing to a non-encyclopedic source *and* Wikipedia is much better than the traditional source alone. Yes, the meatspace/research source is probably more trustworthy/up to date, but a second verification helps not just add to the reliability of a given statement, but has an effect of almost multiplying the reliability.
It's even arguable that referencing two encyclopedias for a statement (providing they support each other) is better than the one 'traditional' source.
Even then, 'telling the truth' could one of two things. One is not lying, and the other is the universal version.
But I submit that you're right to counter that again my previous post when I said "I haven't ever heard it used in that context".
However, when the words "the truth" by themselves are used, I've always heard it in the universal context, not the "you're not lying" version.