I would be happy if they would just report *any* number they called but got no answers from (even if it's from not picking up) as a "no response" in the results, rather than filtering these out. I'm guessing you'd see something like,
23% democrat 24% republican 3% other 75% no answer
Not very informative when you see those results, you know?
Yes, but "there's a signal that propogates at infinite speed and yet can't be used for communication" is a road you really don't want to go down.
Bell's theorem forces you to choose between rejecting locality and rejecting counterfactual definiteness (i.e. the idea that there is a pre-existing property that is "waiting" for our measuring to find out what it "really was" the whole time).
At one point in the interview he compared a family of 4 living in South Dakota with one living in San Francisco with the same yearly income and complained that the folks in San Francisco were being stingy. He was comparing one of the lowest cost areas to live with one of the highest cost areas and complaining because the latter didn't donate as much. Well no shit Sherlock, people living in San Francisco have less disposable income for any given level of income.
I see this argument a lot, and I don't find it convincing. It amounts to redefining part of your purchases as "not disposable income".
Rather than saying that San Franciscans have less disposable income, why not say that San Franciscans have a lot more disposable income, and spend more of that disposable income to take up valuable real estate?
Seriously, people seem to forget that certain areas are better to live in, and *that* is what makes them more expensive -- the price you pay is the price to live in that better place. Failing to appreciate this insight is why we get ridiculous rent control and welfare assistance policies that are ultimately subsidizing a luxury good (living in a high-value area). Um, if someone's on government assistance, why should they get this big bump in standard of living by virtue of being able to continue to live in pricey areas? Lots of others folks would pay top dollar to be there!
There are lots of places that are prime real estate, yet the voters there put in place laws that lock in that current group of tenants, preventing creative, industrious people from buying it, moving in, and making the best use of the synergies possible with that land at that location. For what?
The point is, San Franciscans have the option of living waaaay far from the high-dollar urban areas, thus paying less for land, and commuting in as necessary. But instead, they spend their *after-tax* (i.e., disposable) income on gaining access to good real estate that saves them the travel time. They are thus paying for free time -- the exact same kind of thing you're doing when you spend disposable income on maid services.
(Note: I haven't read Brooks, so I'm not defending any of his other points, so he may very well be wrong about other arguments; I'm just focusing on this narrow issue.)
And I thought I turned off the retarded new discussion indexing system (the one with the meaningless sliding bar on the side that lets you make more comments pretend to show), but it turns itself back on for no reason, no matter how many times I change the settings or try different ones.
Set to "classic" --> revert back automatically
WTF??? Can't you retards just leave well enough alone?
Speaking of which, why do they need to keep the wings? It's not like someone can live in that part, and it massively increases the probability of a pilot misidentifying it from above.
I get most spam in January, when some group sends me snail telling me I have to give them lots of my money, and then this is followed up by emails from special "services" that tell me they can help pay the extortion for only $49.99 or some bullshit.
A doctor that prescribes ineffective pain medications and then gropes at anti-depressants is not a doctor who has a real understanding of the patient's ailment.
"Beating" the doctor in a case like that should not be regarded as surprising, something that you have to explain away.
Next time, don't make Chrysler, GM (sorry, I mean the new GM that stiffed the creditors of the old GM), and Ford your three alternates. There are better carmakers out there.
Mentioning CERN because it's hosted in the same country as the tunnel? Comparing an entire train's kinetic energy to that of a fundmantal particle's kinetic energy? WTF?
Why don't they compare the number of trains going through it per day to the number of possible subatomic particles while they're at it?
Okay, that does it: I am now convinced someone submitted this patent as a joke and they never got around to letting the patent office know after getting it approved (which wasn't supposed to happen). Then, patent troll Nathan Myhrvold, the guy who duped the SuperFreakonomics idiots on geoengineering, bought it up for his Intellectual Ventures troll company and then sold it to a troll with even lower morals.
I don't think you proved what you think you proved.
What I got from your post is that the legal system is so totally fucked up that it actually requires an expensive education to do something as basic as suing someone for spying on your children.
Yes, *given* the shittiness of the system, it's "worth the money" to pay one of these people. But you can still say the same thing about lobbyists, who consume a lot of resources simply to argue for a bigger share of a pie that is smaller because of them.
(I've heard it's also "worth it" sometimes to pay muggers, extortion racketeers, and kidnappers.)
In all of these cases, they're *still* not producing value in any sense that we actually care about, no matter much a fee their "services" might command.
Nature can't change to make her laws easier for engineers and doctors to parse. But we can sure as hell improve the legal system.
Yes, there thesis seems to come from looking at an excessively narrow reference class for their inferences. The real question is not "Why does the same invention happen in several places at once?", but: "Why doesn't the same invention happen almost *everywhere* that the pre-requisites are met?" That is, why only these few people and not 90% of those who were almost there, if it's really "obvious given the related technologies"?
For an extreme example, the technology for trains has been around since Roman times (they used horse-powered transport on rails and could make steam engines).
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the purpose of silicone was to make the tits look *thicker*?
I would be happy if they would just report *any* number they called but got no answers from (even if it's from not picking up) as a "no response" in the results, rather than filtering these out. I'm guessing you'd see something like,
23% democrat
24% republican
3% other
75% no answer
Not very informative when you see those results, you know?
Ah, but what about the accusations that Microsoft is paying Asus to deny being asked for royalties?
Yes, but "there's a signal that propogates at infinite speed and yet can't be used for communication" is a road you really don't want to go down.
Bell's theorem forces you to choose between rejecting locality and rejecting counterfactual definiteness (i.e. the idea that there is a pre-existing property that is "waiting" for our measuring to find out what it "really was" the whole time).
It should be a .org, and based in Ireland. Bible.org.ie!
I know an O(s) algorithm for solving linear systems, but it only works on diagonal matrices ...
When I was ~10, Buick mailed me software that simulated driving a Buick -- well, about as well as you could expect a Mac Plus to simulate.
Surprise, surprise, that didn't work either!
BZZT! Still not giving me the classic index!
I see this argument a lot, and I don't find it convincing. It amounts to redefining part of your purchases as "not disposable income".
Rather than saying that San Franciscans have less disposable income, why not say that San Franciscans have a lot more disposable income, and spend more of that disposable income to take up valuable real estate?
Seriously, people seem to forget that certain areas are better to live in, and *that* is what makes them more expensive -- the price you pay is the price to live in that better place. Failing to appreciate this insight is why we get ridiculous rent control and welfare assistance policies that are ultimately subsidizing a luxury good (living in a high-value area). Um, if someone's on government assistance, why should they get this big bump in standard of living by virtue of being able to continue to live in pricey areas? Lots of others folks would pay top dollar to be there!
There are lots of places that are prime real estate, yet the voters there put in place laws that lock in that current group of tenants, preventing creative, industrious people from buying it, moving in, and making the best use of the synergies possible with that land at that location. For what?
The point is, San Franciscans have the option of living waaaay far from the high-dollar urban areas, thus paying less for land, and commuting in as necessary. But instead, they spend their *after-tax* (i.e., disposable) income on gaining access to good real estate that saves them the travel time. They are thus paying for free time -- the exact same kind of thing you're doing when you spend disposable income on maid services.
(Note: I haven't read Brooks, so I'm not defending any of his other points, so he may very well be wrong about other arguments; I'm just focusing on this narrow issue.)
And I thought I turned off the retarded new discussion indexing system (the one with the meaningless sliding bar on the side that lets you make more comments pretend to show), but it turns itself back on for no reason, no matter how many times I change the settings or try different ones.
Set to "classic" --> revert back automatically
WTF??? Can't you retards just leave well enough alone?
Speaking of which, why do they need to keep the wings? It's not like someone can live in that part, and it massively increases the probability of a pilot misidentifying it from above.
It supports voicechat though!
I get most spam in January, when some group sends me snail telling me I have to give them lots of my money, and then this is followed up by emails from special "services" that tell me they can help pay the extortion for only $49.99 or some bullshit.
A doctor that prescribes ineffective pain medications and then gropes at anti-depressants is not a doctor who has a real understanding of the patient's ailment.
"Beating" the doctor in a case like that should not be regarded as surprising, something that you have to explain away.
Next time, don't make Chrysler, GM (sorry, I mean the new GM that stiffed the creditors of the old GM), and Ford your three alternates. There are better carmakers out there.
Mentioning CERN because it's hosted in the same country as the tunnel? Comparing an entire train's kinetic energy to that of a fundmantal particle's kinetic energy? WTF?
Why don't they compare the number of trains going through it per day to the number of possible subatomic particles while they're at it?
Okay, that does it: I am now convinced someone submitted this patent as a joke and they never got around to letting the patent office know after getting it approved (which wasn't supposed to happen). Then, patent troll Nathan Myhrvold, the guy who duped the SuperFreakonomics idiots on geoengineering, bought it up for his Intellectual Ventures troll company and then sold it to a troll with even lower morals.
*vomits*
Yep, it's too bad there's no middle ground between
a) complete abolition of intellectual property rights, and
b) complete prohibition on doing anything similar to anything that you have observed anyone else ever doing.
But as it stands, I guess a) is the only reasonable option that anyone could ever pick!
I don't think you proved what you think you proved.
What I got from your post is that the legal system is so totally fucked up that it actually requires an expensive education to do something as basic as suing someone for spying on your children.
Yes, *given* the shittiness of the system, it's "worth the money" to pay one of these people. But you can still say the same thing about lobbyists, who consume a lot of resources simply to argue for a bigger share of a pie that is smaller because of them.
(I've heard it's also "worth it" sometimes to pay muggers, extortion racketeers, and kidnappers.)
In all of these cases, they're *still* not producing value in any sense that we actually care about, no matter much a fee their "services" might command.
Nature can't change to make her laws easier for engineers and doctors to parse. But we can sure as hell improve the legal system.
Not to mention how many pages have been changed.
That's actually apocryphal.
Yes, there thesis seems to come from looking at an excessively narrow reference class for their inferences. The real question is not "Why does the same invention happen in several places at once?", but: "Why doesn't the same invention happen almost *everywhere* that the pre-requisites are met?" That is, why only these few people and not 90% of those who were almost there, if it's really "obvious given the related technologies"?
For an extreme example, the technology for trains has been around since Roman times (they used horse-powered transport on rails and could make steam engines).
Congratulations: you're one of those they duped.
Workers wouldn't get paid the next week? God, you'll fucking believe anything.
If the US just printed money to pay off China, it would still be fucking itself and its citizens over.
No, you see, the mystery is what the encrypted password decrypts to!