Um, kid, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but... well, gosh, this is a hard thing to have to tell someone.
People go to concerts to be around people who also have an interest in that particular artist. They most certainly do not go there because of some ultra-subtle nuance in the music when it's played live that ONLY rabid fans can notice. Frankly, most of those people wouldn't be able to tell if the artist were really playing or not if their lives depended on it. And you know what? They're not watching for it either.
If you go to a concert because of that special quality of the music itself that can only be had by being there -- rather than because of the fans around you and being together with the artists -- well, sucks to be the naive little sucker that you are, doesn't it?
1) When I worry about the lack of an open internet, it's 100% not because I want to protect the jobs of the people who build it's infrastructure. That's a complete trivialization of what is desirable about the open internet. The thing to worry about is the free exchange of ideas that it enables, and the check on corruption and tyranny it allows, not the loss of a fucking jobs program.
2) Yes, one day more and more humans will be made obsolete because a machine can do it better. This is good. To the extent that it's bad, it's because it means some of those displaced humans will not have any income opportunities left with which to buy the output. But the solution for that isn't to prop up inefficient methods in perpetuity. The solution is to ensure that everyone owns a share of the ventures that outcompete human labor so they can share in the gain in productivity.
3) If the art is good, I will gladly pay for legal instantiations (copies) of it. But if it's just "new" re-re-remixes of the old shit that only *other* people in the ivory tower care about, well, then good fucking riddance to bad fucking rubbish. The mouth-breathers who actually get intellectual stimulation from hearing the same stage jingles over and over again are welcome to blow their welfare checks (that's what a "salary" from a government-propped art department really is) on it and thin themselves out of the gene pool. I'm sure the theater buildings will be suitable as VR centers or data farms when they file for bankruptcy.
If they can't tell the difference, *who cares*? They were deceiving themselves the whole time anyway. If they *both* can't tell the difference, *and* want real music *that they can't even distinguish anyway*, well, I'm sorry, but they've got serious issues. The product they thought they were buying is a little more complex than we might have thought, but still, ultimately, a delusion. And if they're getting separated from their money more easily... well, is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Maybe resources can be directed at things of social value, rather than bullshit positional games and jerk-off performances for the easily amused... just a thought.
As a bonus, no TV time wasted on the Tony awards...
The difference is that Broadway musicians weren't producing anything of value in the *first place*. In contrast, say, buggy-whip makers did produce something of value, it's just that they were obviated by the production of something even more valuable.
Anyone sad that Broadway won't have *real* musicians anymore? *Yawn*... didn't think so. Broadway musicals are for the easily-amused. (Like people who find significance in the presence of two words with root "muse" that I just used, or how "muse" rhymes with "use".) Or people who feel they have something to gain by association with Broadway.
I would like to be the fourth person to whole-heartedly agree, and the first person to wonder why the hell you aren't modded up higher.
(Seriously, that's the thing that's turned me off from Apple products -- how they'll make it so nice but then leave out so many basic features. Put an mp3 on my music player or a pdf on my smartphone? No, I need their fucking iTunes before I can move a goddamn file. Save a few stills from a video? No, I have to repeatedly navigate through the same lengthy directory several times. A calculator with log capability? No, that'll have to wait for OS 10.5 with some dorky cat name.)
Interesting. FWIW, I thought the answer would be something like, "Because virtually every apartment is eternally rent-controlled to $400/month despite people willing to pay $3000/month (at least for apartments on the outer sides near the high-value real estate."
(And for anyone who was wondering, no I'm not racist, thanks for asking. Just curious about how a strange situation results.)
I don't think the analogy to car sensors works because the sensors for climate have to be transformed thru various equations before they correspond to the variable you want to measure. And in fact, one of the cru emails has a scientist noting that the temperature measurements would imply the atmosphere has energy. That we can't seem to account for, which is precisely an example of an error in going from sensor reading to inferred value.
I don't think any of the skeptics dispute that the sensors got the purported values, just the inferences thereon.
Science works if and to the extent that uses methods that allow reality to correct errors on the part of scientists.
To the extent that it's just an echo chamber of people who declare themselves right *if* they all agree, and *because* they all agree, it's no different from religion.
When numbers work differently in your specialty, and so you get to dismiss any criticism from the outside -- that's religion.
Yes, it's great to have subscribers, and they deserve to have a headstart on seeing the articles. I've subscribed several times myself.
But there's a *huge* difference between:
a) "Hey, subscribing is a great idea, help Slashdot out here!"
versus
b) "I'm going to subscribe to Slashdot and then camp the site all day, and delve into a long-ass essay the moment I see any controversial article get approved so I can overwhelm all the other posters the second it goes up!"
The first one is true. The second is just fuckin scary.
I know you're still not "getting it", but the point is that "You must get buddy-buddy with 'our people' for n years before you're qualified to criticize" isn't a very good standard, because it would validate obvious garbage. Unless some reality-grounded standard *backs up* the process, the requirement to have a doctorate is baseless.
And if the reality-grounded standard exists, scientists should point to *that*, not the fact that being buddy-buddy with their club results in agreeing with them!
Actually, it's even more like, "You can't point out an error in addition on the car repair bill statement unless you're a car mechanic, because car mechanics get special training in how to use math in these oh-so-special circumstances like telling self-serving lies about your car repair."
(Compare: "You can't point out an error in our statistics and measuring methodology unless you're a PhD in atmospheric sciences, because professional atmospheric scientists get special training in how to do statistical analyses and hypothesis testing in these oh-so-special circumstances like when the numbers refer to the atmosphere and we want to say something that will justify more funding and prestige for us.")
Yeah, but that's the thing! They told me I wasn't qualified to judge their evidence, because I'm "not a real climatologist", and wouldn't be unless I got a doctorate and went through the whole indoctrination thing like for seminary. Something about climatology using "special" math and statistics that only people who are specially trained over 8 years can do in *just* the right way to get the *right* conclusions.
I guess I should learn to trust both priests *and* climatologists because they're the professionals.
A lot of priests say I won't have a good eternal afterlife unless I adhere to their religion. I pointed out the lack of evidence, flawed models, and non-falsifiability of most of their work, and even to the history of them making failed predictions.
But then they told me I'm not qualified to criticize them unless I get a doctorate in theology, replete with indoctrination into their groupthink and insulation from criticism in the outside world, and making a huge personal investment in the validity of their conclusions.
I guess I should believe them, since everyone *else* who went through their seminary came to these conclusions...
Really? Read the thread history, and see if I've "obsessively replied to *everyone*". Also, see if anyone has given me a straight, non-subject-changing, non-let-me-show-off-all-I-know answer.
Sorry, if you consider [belief-you-hold]-ist to be a derogatory term, then *you're* the one who's "out there". IDers are criticizing the validity of a specific mechanism. It follows that the people they criticize are [that-mechanism]-ists. (And yes, I know you're going to go postal because I used the term "belief" here, though you probably won't give a neutral alternative there either.)
Seriously, everyone here needs to spend a few minutes understanding the difference between sense and reference aka extension and intension aka "Oedipus's mom" and "Jocasta".
And I'm trolling because I object to making IDers use contorted, inexact language rather than standard inflection of words?
I'm not trying to defend the validity of ID. I just sympathize with anyone who's told they have to use terminology that directly bakes in a concession of error. Yes, biologists *should* use the model of evolution in their work, as that is the most reasonable belief to hold in that area. That doesn't imply that the *definition* of biologist is "someone who uses and endorses the theory of evolution".
Seriously, the whole crowd here has gone nuts, feeling they have to defend every aspect of "their side", no matter what the relevance to the topic of whether "evolutionist" is an appropriate term in this context.
I love the Moment too. (In fact, I made the previous post from mine and yes I probably should have bothered to capitalize.) It's heavily under-rated -- it never gets mentioned in lists of the "top" smartphones, but is the most pleasant thing to use (Except maybe how the google homepage crashes the browser), and under $100 with contract after rebate. I don't know how people put up with software keyboards...
Because it's the most accurate term for the people IDers are criticizing, and every argument against the use of the term seems to be of the form "but they're wrong!", which doesn't speak to the issue of whether the term is appropriate for designating the class of people they're trying to refer to, and it's quite petty to require that they not use a standard conjugation/inflection/whatever of a standard term?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, kid, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but ... well, gosh, this is a hard thing to have to tell someone.
People go to concerts to be around people who also have an interest in that particular artist. They most certainly do not go there because of some ultra-subtle nuance in the music when it's played live that ONLY rabid fans can notice. Frankly, most of those people wouldn't be able to tell if the artist were really playing or not if their lives depended on it. And you know what? They're not watching for it either.
If you go to a concert because of that special quality of the music itself that can only be had by being there -- rather than because of the fans around you and being together with the artists -- well, sucks to be the naive little sucker that you are, doesn't it?
1) When I worry about the lack of an open internet, it's 100% not because I want to protect the jobs of the people who build it's infrastructure. That's a complete trivialization of what is desirable about the open internet. The thing to worry about is the free exchange of ideas that it enables, and the check on corruption and tyranny it allows, not the loss of a fucking jobs program.
2) Yes, one day more and more humans will be made obsolete because a machine can do it better. This is good. To the extent that it's bad, it's because it means some of those displaced humans will not have any income opportunities left with which to buy the output. But the solution for that isn't to prop up inefficient methods in perpetuity. The solution is to ensure that everyone owns a share of the ventures that outcompete human labor so they can share in the gain in productivity.
3) If the art is good, I will gladly pay for legal instantiations (copies) of it. But if it's just "new" re-re-remixes of the old shit that only *other* people in the ivory tower care about, well, then good fucking riddance to bad fucking rubbish. The mouth-breathers who actually get intellectual stimulation from hearing the same stage jingles over and over again are welcome to blow their welfare checks (that's what a "salary" from a government-propped art department really is) on it and thin themselves out of the gene pool. I'm sure the theater buildings will be suitable as VR centers or data farms when they file for bankruptcy.
If they can't tell the difference, *who cares*? They were deceiving themselves the whole time anyway. If they *both* can't tell the difference, *and* want real music *that they can't even distinguish anyway*, well, I'm sorry, but they've got serious issues. The product they thought they were buying is a little more complex than we might have thought, but still, ultimately, a delusion. And if they're getting separated from their money more easily ... well, is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Maybe resources can be directed at things of social value, rather than bullshit positional games and jerk-off performances for the easily amused ... just a thought.
As a bonus, no TV time wasted on the Tony awards...
The difference is that Broadway musicians weren't producing anything of value in the *first place*. In contrast, say, buggy-whip makers did produce something of value, it's just that they were obviated by the production of something even more valuable.
Anyone sad that Broadway won't have *real* musicians anymore? *Yawn* ... didn't think so. Broadway musicals are for the easily-amused. (Like people who find significance in the presence of two words with root "muse" that I just used, or how "muse" rhymes with "use".) Or people who feel they have something to gain by association with Broadway.
Wait, smartphones support voicechat now???
I would like to be the fourth person to whole-heartedly agree, and the first person to wonder why the hell you aren't modded up higher.
(Seriously, that's the thing that's turned me off from Apple products -- how they'll make it so nice but then leave out so many basic features. Put an mp3 on my music player or a pdf on my smartphone? No, I need their fucking iTunes before I can move a goddamn file. Save a few stills from a video? No, I have to repeatedly navigate through the same lengthy directory several times. A calculator with log capability? No, that'll have to wait for OS 10.5 with some dorky cat name.)
Interesting. FWIW, I thought the answer would be something like, "Because virtually every apartment is eternally rent-controlled to $400/month despite people willing to pay $3000/month (at least for apartments on the outer sides near the high-value real estate."
(And for anyone who was wondering, no I'm not racist, thanks for asking. Just curious about how a strange situation results.)
Now you can type actual messages on an iPhone [1] without wanting to pull out clumps of your hair!
[1] or any physical keyboard-free smartphone
So how do the people in Harlem afford to live there?
Then why can't they make the cars any cheaper?
I don't think the analogy to car sensors works because the sensors for climate have to be transformed thru various equations before they correspond to the variable you want to measure. And in fact, one of the cru emails has a scientist noting that the temperature measurements would imply the atmosphere has energy. That we can't seem to account for, which is precisely an example of an error in going from sensor reading to inferred value.
I don't think any of the skeptics dispute that the sensors got the purported values, just the inferences thereon.
Science works if and to the extent that uses methods that allow reality to correct errors on the part of scientists.
To the extent that it's just an echo chamber of people who declare themselves right *if* they all agree, and *because* they all agree, it's no different from religion.
When numbers work differently in your specialty, and so you get to dismiss any criticism from the outside -- that's religion.
Yes, it's great to have subscribers, and they deserve to have a headstart on seeing the articles. I've subscribed several times myself.
But there's a *huge* difference between:
a) "Hey, subscribing is a great idea, help Slashdot out here!"
versus
b) "I'm going to subscribe to Slashdot and then camp the site all day, and delve into a long-ass essay the moment I see any controversial article get approved so I can overwhelm all the other posters the second it goes up!"
The first one is true. The second is just fuckin scary.
I know you're still not "getting it", but the point is that "You must get buddy-buddy with 'our people' for n years before you're qualified to criticize" isn't a very good standard, because it would validate obvious garbage. Unless some reality-grounded standard *backs up* the process, the requirement to have a doctorate is baseless.
And if the reality-grounded standard exists, scientists should point to *that*, not the fact that being buddy-buddy with their club results in agreeing with them!
Actually, it's even more like, "You can't point out an error in addition on the car repair bill statement unless you're a car mechanic, because car mechanics get special training in how to use math in these oh-so-special circumstances like telling self-serving lies about your car repair."
(Compare: "You can't point out an error in our statistics and measuring methodology unless you're a PhD in atmospheric sciences, because professional atmospheric scientists get special training in how to do statistical analyses and hypothesis testing in these oh-so-special circumstances like when the numbers refer to the atmosphere and we want to say something that will justify more funding and prestige for us.")
Yeah, but that's the thing! They told me I wasn't qualified to judge their evidence, because I'm "not a real climatologist", and wouldn't be unless I got a doctorate and went through the whole indoctrination thing like for seminary. Something about climatology using "special" math and statistics that only people who are specially trained over 8 years can do in *just* the right way to get the *right* conclusions.
I guess I should learn to trust both priests *and* climatologists because they're the professionals.
A lot of priests say I won't have a good eternal afterlife unless I adhere to their religion. I pointed out the lack of evidence, flawed models, and non-falsifiability of most of their work, and even to the history of them making failed predictions.
But then they told me I'm not qualified to criticize them unless I get a doctorate in theology, replete with indoctrination into their groupthink and insulation from criticism in the outside world, and making a huge personal investment in the validity of their conclusions.
I guess I should believe them, since everyone *else* who went through their seminary came to these conclusions ...
And those in east Asia use the term "grober crimate change".
What are those things that you coudn't do before?
... have the latest Apple products as of July 2010?
Really? Read the thread history, and see if I've "obsessively replied to *everyone*". Also, see if anyone has given me a straight, non-subject-changing, non-let-me-show-off-all-I-know answer.
Sorry, if you consider [belief-you-hold]-ist to be a derogatory term, then *you're* the one who's "out there". IDers are criticizing the validity of a specific mechanism. It follows that the people they criticize are [that-mechanism]-ists. (And yes, I know you're going to go postal because I used the term "belief" here, though you probably won't give a neutral alternative there either.)
Seriously, everyone here needs to spend a few minutes understanding the difference between sense and reference aka extension and intension aka "Oedipus's mom" and "Jocasta".
And I'm trolling because I object to making IDers use contorted, inexact language rather than standard inflection of words?
I'm not trying to defend the validity of ID. I just sympathize with anyone who's told they have to use terminology that directly bakes in a concession of error. Yes, biologists *should* use the model of evolution in their work, as that is the most reasonable belief to hold in that area. That doesn't imply that the *definition* of biologist is "someone who uses and endorses the theory of evolution".
Seriously, the whole crowd here has gone nuts, feeling they have to defend every aspect of "their side", no matter what the relevance to the topic of whether "evolutionist" is an appropriate term in this context.
Yeaaaaaah man, my team, like, *totally* beat your team, duuuuuuuuude. Rah rah go tribe, beat up their tribe, it's all about us winning against them!
So if IDers call themselves "correct people", they can expect that the only appropriate term for referring to them is "correct people"?
I love the Moment too. (In fact, I made the previous post from mine and yes I probably should have bothered to capitalize.) It's heavily under-rated -- it never gets mentioned in lists of the "top" smartphones, but is the most pleasant thing to use (Except maybe how the google homepage crashes the browser), and under $100 with contract after rebate. I don't know how people put up with software keyboards ...
Because it's the most accurate term for the people IDers are criticizing, and every argument against the use of the term seems to be of the form "but they're wrong!", which doesn't speak to the issue of whether the term is appropriate for designating the class of people they're trying to refer to, and it's quite petty to require that they not use a standard conjugation/inflection/whatever of a standard term?
Just a thought.