Yes, silly me. I must have mistaken a statistical anaylsis of ebay as something completely different from a dry joint on a Navy ship. I now realize they are the same thing, and will in the future not make that mistake again.
It doesn't matter how much theheff has used ebay, his memory is human. It is selective and unreliable. If you can find the flaw in the reliable statistical research, by all means do so. If it's so trerribly wrong, the flaws should be glaringly obvious. Someone with as much experience as you with how stupid educated people are should have no trouble at all pointing them out.
That was the point of the comic. They were responding to a Newsweek article which contained the line in the final frame, by pointing out that art critics are always saying crap like that, even about things that obviously are art (like paintings).
The human brain collects and remembers data in insanely selective, limited, and warped ways. It's not exactly like theheff has a list of auction times and final prices in a sorted list in his head.
Really? The PhD committee who gave Arrhenius the lowest passing grade for his ionic dissociation theory had more experience than almost anyone in the world in working with molecules, and they assured him that atoms couldn't hold a charge. The ancients knew from hundreds of years of writings that the stars don't move. Decades of experience had taught chemists that chlorofluorocarbons were safe. And _everyone_ knew that neutrinos are massless. All these long-term experiences were shot down by measurement and analysis taken in short periods of time.
I go to Duke. And school is in. I pay attention, and I've never heard about any protests here. The noticeboards are filled with stupid shit about dance groups, frat parties, and religious mutual-mental-masturbation sessions (I think they usually call them fellowship meetings). Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but from conversations I overhear on buses and while walking, I doubt it. I have heard 1 (one) group of three talking about something besides parties or how much their classes suck and they can't wait for the weekend.
I just moved out of Florida, and I'm now in North Carolina. In Florida, I knew maybe 5 people who cared about things other than how many brain cells they were going to kill each weekend, and here I know none so far.
And another thing: why the hell does it take two days for college students to organize a protest about Facebook making already-public information easier to access (OMGNO!!!), when they don't seem to do shit about secret prisons, torture, and other problems of large-scale government?
That's true, but in this case I think the power and media attention matter more than the money. All a politician's got to do if accused is send one of his lackeys to find out why the accuser wants him on the list, then send that to the local TV stations. Then the politician has the sympathy of the populace and no judge could possibly order the politician onto the list. Worse, the public would then have to impression that the law works, because judges don't put undeserving people in the registry.
That would be ideal, but remember that the law generally doesn't apply to the rich and powerful. Judges would have a far smaller problem with putting a random schmuck in the registry on no evidence than they would a prominent politician.
Actually, I don't mind that all too much. I don't like the things he did that pissed people off, but discord isn't a bad thing. As soon as all cultures understand each other and all countries agree with each other, the final barrier to a world government has been crossed, and a world government will inevitably progress to a police state which can't be brought down.
Look, dipshit, your post included a rhetorical question whose answer was obviously based on a lack of understanding. I didn't say I knew the legal position, I was saying what I thought the legal position should be, and stating my reason, since you didn't seem to understand the other side of the argument.
Throwing out genuinely incriminating information purely on principle or something?
Yes, they should. It's the same reason evidence from illegal police searches is thrown out. If the judge is going to say "bad, bad FBI! you shouldn't have done that to get this evidence which we will now use to find in your favor!", why wouldn't they keep doing it?
I agree with the last sentence in theory, but remember that your money is being spent on these programs. Would you pay for a legal problem just to allow the technological solution to win?
Murray Gell-Mann because he named his quark theory The Eightfold Way, which automatically makes him kick ass.
If you don't know why Isaac Asimov kicks ass, you should be ashamed.
Re:Partial credit
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There are no studies showing a trainer taking a few average joes and getting them into the world championships of bodybuilding. But there are such examples in chess, as TFA states.
Chess isn't a good measure either. A COMPUTER can play chess. The rules and strategies are almost all worked out, so it takes only practice to learn them. A better field for this discussion is music - four lifetimes would not suffice to learn all of music theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, silly me. I must have mistaken a statistical anaylsis of ebay as something completely different from a dry joint on a Navy ship. I now realize they are the same thing, and will in the future not make that mistake again.
It doesn't matter how much theheff has used ebay, his memory is human. It is selective and unreliable. If you can find the flaw in the reliable statistical research, by all means do so. If it's so trerribly wrong, the flaws should be glaringly obvious. Someone with as much experience as you with how stupid educated people are should have no trouble at all pointing them out.
That was the point of the comic. They were responding to a Newsweek article which contained the line in the final frame, by pointing out that art critics are always saying crap like that, even about things that obviously are art (like paintings).
The human brain collects and remembers data in insanely selective, limited, and warped ways. It's not exactly like theheff has a list of auction times and final prices in a sorted list in his head.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2000/03/01 Penny Arcade settled this shit back in 2000.
Really? The PhD committee who gave Arrhenius the lowest passing grade for his ionic dissociation theory had more experience than almost anyone in the world in working with molecules, and they assured him that atoms couldn't hold a charge. The ancients knew from hundreds of years of writings that the stars don't move. Decades of experience had taught chemists that chlorofluorocarbons were safe. And _everyone_ knew that neutrinos are massless. All these long-term experiences were shot down by measurement and analysis taken in short periods of time.
Did you collect and analyze data from ebay, like the researchers? No, you say? Then what makes you think your opinion matters?
I go to Duke. And school is in. I pay attention, and I've never heard about any protests here. The noticeboards are filled with stupid shit about dance groups, frat parties, and religious mutual-mental-masturbation sessions (I think they usually call them fellowship meetings). Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but from conversations I overhear on buses and while walking, I doubt it. I have heard 1 (one) group of three talking about something besides parties or how much their classes suck and they can't wait for the weekend.
I just moved out of Florida, and I'm now in North Carolina. In Florida, I knew maybe 5 people who cared about things other than how many brain cells they were going to kill each weekend, and here I know none so far.
And another thing: why the hell does it take two days for college students to organize a protest about Facebook making already-public information easier to access (OMGNO!!!), when they don't seem to do shit about secret prisons, torture, and other problems of large-scale government?
Snoking does damage to the body, alcohol does dmage to the brain. Which is worse is different for different people.
Personally, I'd choose to damage my body before my brain. No use living 20 more years if you're a dumbass wasting other people's oxygen.
So obvious that you did it yourself, eh?
That's true, but in this case I think the power and media attention matter more than the money. All a politician's got to do if accused is send one of his lackeys to find out why the accuser wants him on the list, then send that to the local TV stations. Then the politician has the sympathy of the populace and no judge could possibly order the politician onto the list. Worse, the public would then have to impression that the law works, because judges don't put undeserving people in the registry.
That would be ideal, but remember that the law generally doesn't apply to the rich and powerful. Judges would have a far smaller problem with putting a random schmuck in the registry on no evidence than they would a prominent politician.
Actually, I don't mind that all too much. I don't like the things he did that pissed people off, but discord isn't a bad thing. As soon as all cultures understand each other and all countries agree with each other, the final barrier to a world government has been crossed, and a world government will inevitably progress to a police state which can't be brought down.
Whoops, my bad. I thought you were the OP.
You... you really take insults from people on the internet to heart? Christ, you are a dipshit. Grow some thicker skin.
I really have to quote you in order for you to remember what you said?
What should they be doing? Throwing out genuinely incriminating information purely on principle or something?
Look, dipshit, your post included a rhetorical question whose answer was obviously based on a lack of understanding. I didn't say I knew the legal position, I was saying what I thought the legal position should be, and stating my reason, since you didn't seem to understand the other side of the argument.
Throwing out genuinely incriminating information purely on principle or something?
Yes, they should. It's the same reason evidence from illegal police searches is thrown out. If the judge is going to say "bad, bad FBI! you shouldn't have done that to get this evidence which we will now use to find in your favor!", why wouldn't they keep doing it?
I understood the reference. Both times it was posted.
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193883&cid =15896360
I agree with the last sentence in theory, but remember that your money is being spent on these programs. Would you pay for a legal problem just to allow the technological solution to win?
Murray Gell-Mann because he named his quark theory The Eightfold Way, which automatically makes him kick ass.
If you don't know why Isaac Asimov kicks ass, you should be ashamed.
There are no studies showing a trainer taking a few average joes and getting them into the world championships of bodybuilding. But there are such examples in chess, as TFA states.
Chess isn't a good measure either. A COMPUTER can play chess. The rules and strategies are almost all worked out, so it takes only practice to learn them. A better field for this discussion is music - four lifetimes would not suffice to learn all of music theory.
Fuck. We need electronic laws. Paper is holding back my plans for domination.