I believe gyrogeerloose's point was that the mere fact of the judge's ownership of stock in oil companies is not particularly informative, because it could be explained -- as it is for a HUGE portion of the population -- by ownership in a general large-cap stock index.
The oil stocks would only make up 15% of that *portion* of the person's general portfolio, and would have to be compared to stocks in the index (and rest of one's portfolio) that would potentially be *hurt* by more drilling.
It's unlikely someone's going to go to tremendous effort to show favoritism toward ~2% of their general portfolio and disfavoritism toward 1-2%.
The point is, we have to know what *fraction* of the judge's wealth is in oil stocks, otherwise judges couldn't even own a typical equity index. (Though I admit, they should probably be restricted to holding a blind trust in which they don't know they investments beyond general characteristics.) How much of the judge's wealth is in bonds, which would benefit from an economic downturn due to an oil shock?
Yeah, it sounds like yet another professor blowing good money to produce a study that 4chan could debunk in an hour.
Still, it got me thinking about a sort of similar idea: instead of expecting corporations to stab themselves in the eye by degrading their data, what about using a kind of data that is designed to become less useful over time, and then, as an individual, only sharing that kind of data with businesses.
Think about it this way: why do they put your date of birth on your ID cards rather than your age? Well, duh, your age while change over time but your DOB won't. If you ever need to know someone's age, you can infer it from the current date and their DOB.
So if you gave your age to a company you're doing business with, that information becomes less useful over time because you're less likely to still be that age. (Of course, if they record the time you gave them that data, they can get pretty close, but just focus on the general concept.) Giving your age would be preferable to giving your DOB.
Similarly, telling someone where I live right now is less useful information as time goes by, as there's a chance I could have moved that increases with time. Or consider credit cards and email addresses that exist for only temporary usage.
Is it possible, then, to reformat other kinds of data so that they become less useful over time? People could feel safer giving this data to someone.
Knowing our similarities to other primate species, I think they should direct and film some "TV drama" type performance of monkeys -- basically, a TV show that uses monkeys doing the kinds of social interaction monkeys do. Then, see if the monkeys are just as interested in watching other monkeys handle situations, as we are in watching humans.
Also, see if they're able to distinguish TV from reality, and if they start feeling strongly about the characters.
Of course, it could be difficult to get the monkey "actors" to cooperate.
Oh, and just to clarify: you're saying discrimination is okay as long as it's a tradition? Um, do you not fucking realize that that's exactly the argument they used (or at least were *thinking*) when the first US discrimination laws were enacted?
Oh, yes, the way that AMA members shut down the self-diagnosis interface on WebMD was just *horrendous*. Oh, wait...
Look, I hate the AMA, and I hate the way doctors impede meaningful improvements in the process of healthcare. But seriously, they don't worry me here. Even if they don't like this program when it gets invented, it will probably not be banned, as long as it has some disclaimer like:
"Despite the 99.9999999% success rate of this device, you should completely distrust these results and go see a real doctor because this shit hurts our profits. Carry on then!"
It's art when an elite, serious-sounding group with an aura of superiority decides it counts as art... sucks for you if you're the artist and have already died. They just couldn't be *bothered*.
Sorry bro... you had plenty of time to stop the train when they were passing other laws about discrimination, and only *now* that you realize the absurdity of it all, you want the train to stop?
Yeah, it's sad that you can't see this far ahead, but that's your fault.
What text fading? I don't see any text fading. You must have done something wrong. Especially if you wouldn't even know how to modify that feature. [/typical enthusiast forum response]
Hey genius: I've got a great idea! If suffering is so great, why not just require everyone to be tortured growing up? That would really add some ~*Piz~Zaz*~ to life, wouldn't it? That would have major formative influence on everyone! Hooray! Now we don't have to go through all the difficulty of having high schools and all, and we can directly maximize the suffering?
Why not just do that?
"uhh uhhh"
Yeah, try to think before posting next time. You, the LMS screenwriters, and anyone who thinks Proust was remotely insightful.
Oh, I get it -- you're not like those *real* loud-ass douche Harley drivers, you're just loud enough that people get annoyed enough to complain to the police about you on whatever pretense will get their attention, as opposed to the *truly* loud Harley drivers, who... wait, what was the difference again?
No, he proved that Apple products are so freakishly different that if an advanced alien computer tried to interface with one, it will blow up in frustration.
And the the hundres of other people in the area don't want your loud-ass shit disrupting their peace and quiet. Think about someone other than yourself for a change, douche.
I can understand and be empathetic towards companies that have their business destroyed because of the actions of another, such as fishermen having their livelihoods wiped out because of BP's oil leak. Those businesses deserve some intervention to help them get through the rough time that is no fault of their own.
WTF? You were doing so well until this point, where you reversed course. Why do you suddenly start making exceptions for fishermen in the Gulf? Did they seriously think that they could just fish there, day in, day out and nothing would ever change that in any way affected the viability of fishing and required any slight change in how they earn their money?
If they did, fuck 'em. They can get in line with everyone else to sue BP.
But as for right now, they should have planned for the possibility that the Gulf would be temporarily unavailable for pouring cash into their pockets. They should have an alternate fishing location lined up. An alternate occupation lined up. Savings to live off. Insurance against disasters. *Anything.*
How is this any different from fishermen being inconvenienced by a fucking hurricane? Are we expected to pour our hearts out for them because they can't fish while a storm is tearing down houses and killing people? No. Is the nature of the business. The price of earning your living in the Gulf coast.
Everyone wants a fucking handout these days because the world just isn't static enough for them. Oh, did the foreigners steal your megaprofits from making cars, and now you can't fund your pensions? Bailout. Did real estate prices not do EXACTLY what your fucking model said? Bailout. Did you make risky bets with money intended to pay insurance claims? Bailout.
Bailouts for those with the political pull. It needs to stop. Everyone *knows* it needs to stop. Yet every fucking time the average mouthbreather gets this damn fool idea in his head that, "Oh, well *normally* I don't like bailouts, but this... the overpaid shill told me it was VITAL for the economy, so I'm gonna go along with it... just this *once*..."
Slashdot Mirror
I believe gyrogeerloose's point was that the mere fact of the judge's ownership of stock in oil companies is not particularly informative, because it could be explained -- as it is for a HUGE portion of the population -- by ownership in a general large-cap stock index.
The oil stocks would only make up 15% of that *portion* of the person's general portfolio, and would have to be compared to stocks in the index (and rest of one's portfolio) that would potentially be *hurt* by more drilling.
It's unlikely someone's going to go to tremendous effort to show favoritism toward ~2% of their general portfolio and disfavoritism toward 1-2%.
The point is, we have to know what *fraction* of the judge's wealth is in oil stocks, otherwise judges couldn't even own a typical equity index. (Though I admit, they should probably be restricted to holding a blind trust in which they don't know they investments beyond general characteristics.) How much of the judge's wealth is in bonds, which would benefit from an economic downturn due to an oil shock?
And while we're at it, the U.S. Open isn't *really* open...
Yeah, it sounds like yet another professor blowing good money to produce a study that 4chan could debunk in an hour.
Still, it got me thinking about a sort of similar idea: instead of expecting corporations to stab themselves in the eye by degrading their data, what about using a kind of data that is designed to become less useful over time, and then, as an individual, only sharing that kind of data with businesses.
Think about it this way: why do they put your date of birth on your ID cards rather than your age? Well, duh, your age while change over time but your DOB won't. If you ever need to know someone's age, you can infer it from the current date and their DOB.
So if you gave your age to a company you're doing business with, that information becomes less useful over time because you're less likely to still be that age. (Of course, if they record the time you gave them that data, they can get pretty close, but just focus on the general concept.) Giving your age would be preferable to giving your DOB.
Similarly, telling someone where I live right now is less useful information as time goes by, as there's a chance I could have moved that increases with time. Or consider credit cards and email addresses that exist for only temporary usage.
Is it possible, then, to reformat other kinds of data so that they become less useful over time? People could feel safer giving this data to someone.
Knowing our similarities to other primate species, I think they should direct and film some "TV drama" type performance of monkeys -- basically, a TV show that uses monkeys doing the kinds of social interaction monkeys do. Then, see if the monkeys are just as interested in watching other monkeys handle situations, as we are in watching humans.
Also, see if they're able to distinguish TV from reality, and if they start feeling strongly about the characters.
Of course, it could be difficult to get the monkey "actors" to cooperate.
Oh, and just to clarify: you're saying discrimination is okay as long as it's a tradition? Um, do you not fucking realize that that's exactly the argument they used (or at least were *thinking*) when the first US discrimination laws were enacted?
Smack yourself with a cluestick -- you need it.
What doctors would actually provide this service?
Oh, yes, the way that AMA members shut down the self-diagnosis interface on WebMD was just *horrendous*. Oh, wait...
Look, I hate the AMA, and I hate the way doctors impede meaningful improvements in the process of healthcare. But seriously, they don't worry me here. Even if they don't like this program when it gets invented, it will probably not be banned, as long as it has some disclaimer like:
"Despite the 99.9999999% success rate of this device, you should completely distrust these results and go see a real doctor because this shit hurts our profits. Carry on then!"
It's art when an elite, serious-sounding group with an aura of superiority decides it counts as art ... sucks for you if you're the artist and have already died. They just couldn't be *bothered*.
Sorry bro ... you had plenty of time to stop the train when they were passing other laws about discrimination, and only *now* that you realize the absurdity of it all, you want the train to stop?
Yeah, it's sad that you can't see this far ahead, but that's your fault.
LOL, check out the picture the article greets you. Yeah, maybe they'll have to use a heavily armored guy with a big gun to protect Old Media...
Since light cannot escape the event horizon, it must be black.
Right, because anyone imprisoned anywhere must be black, because only blacks break the law and get locked up.
What text fading? I don't see any text fading. You must have done something wrong. Especially if you wouldn't even know how to modify that feature. [/typical enthusiast forum response]
When is logical reasoning a hissy-fit? Or were you just posting something to show how stupid the author of the quote is?
I think you mean your brain. It's your brain that has the sand, leading you to make such bass-ackwards remarks.
Hey genius: I've got a great idea! If suffering is so great, why not just require everyone to be tortured growing up? That would really add some ~*Piz~Zaz*~ to life, wouldn't it? That would have major formative influence on everyone! Hooray! Now we don't have to go through all the difficulty of having high schools and all, and we can directly maximize the suffering?
Why not just do that?
"uhh uhhh"
Yeah, try to think before posting next time. You, the LMS screenwriters, and anyone who thinks Proust was remotely insightful.
Oh, I get it -- you're not like those *real* loud-ass douche Harley drivers, you're just loud enough that people get annoyed enough to complain to the police about you on whatever pretense will get their attention, as opposed to the *truly* loud Harley drivers, who ... wait, what was the difference again?
No, he proved that Apple products are so freakishly different that if an advanced alien computer tried to interface with one, it will blow up in frustration.
And the the hundres of other people in the area don't want your loud-ass shit disrupting their peace and quiet. Think about someone other than yourself for a change, douche.
They could go bust, but how would that help anyone?
I believe the term is "pour encourager les autres".
So, when that joke went over your head, did it make a WHOOSH!, or was it more of a buzzing sound?
Yeah, it's so rude of them to think you were speeding when you were merely being a douche-nozzle.
I can understand and be empathetic towards companies that have their business destroyed because of the actions of another, such as fishermen having their livelihoods wiped out because of BP's oil leak. Those businesses deserve some intervention to help them get through the rough time that is no fault of their own.
WTF? You were doing so well until this point, where you reversed course. Why do you suddenly start making exceptions for fishermen in the Gulf? Did they seriously think that they could just fish there, day in, day out and nothing would ever change that in any way affected the viability of fishing and required any slight change in how they earn their money?
If they did, fuck 'em. They can get in line with everyone else to sue BP.
But as for right now, they should have planned for the possibility that the Gulf would be temporarily unavailable for pouring cash into their pockets. They should have an alternate fishing location lined up. An alternate occupation lined up. Savings to live off. Insurance against disasters. *Anything.*
How is this any different from fishermen being inconvenienced by a fucking hurricane? Are we expected to pour our hearts out for them because they can't fish while a storm is tearing down houses and killing people? No. Is the nature of the business. The price of earning your living in the Gulf coast.
Everyone wants a fucking handout these days because the world just isn't static enough for them. Oh, did the foreigners steal your megaprofits from making cars, and now you can't fund your pensions? Bailout. Did real estate prices not do EXACTLY what your fucking model said? Bailout. Did you make risky bets with money intended to pay insurance claims? Bailout.
Bailouts for those with the political pull. It needs to stop. Everyone *knows* it needs to stop. Yet every fucking time the average mouthbreather gets this damn fool idea in his head that, "Oh, well *normally* I don't like bailouts, but this ... the overpaid shill told me it was VITAL for the economy, so I'm gonna go along with it ... just this *once*..."
You all know "do the hustle". Someone needs to write a hit song/dance called "do the needful!"
Why is the pool closed? Did someone get AIDS or something?
Don't you mean bureauc-rats?