Well, glad you know the term(s) for it so you can learn more about at and what to call it!
Btw, I've had a flexible sigmoidoscopy, and they're not painful, they administer something IV to knock you out so it's over before you know it and you don't experience any pain, unless you count hearing yourself fart a lot afterward.
Basically, once you start measuring something as a proxy for what you really want to know, people start to take the proxy into account when making decisions, to the point where it becomes useless as a measure for whatever it was intended.
Here, people take these cancer tests as a measure of their probability of cancer. But once they start to treat them as reliable, they start doing more self-destructive things, destroying the correlation between the proxy (the cancer test) and the actual probability of cancer.
I don't know what principle you're appealing to, but I don't think it should be that way. All limit orders should be hidden, and here's how it should work:
1) Trading in any stock happens, for the highest volume stocks, once per minute *at most*, at pre-defined times. (That should be *plenty* of opportunities, and plenty of time to react to news, while not allowing profits for being closer to the trading floor/central computer.
2) All orders come in, a central computer stops taking orders for that stock (for that one per minute auction), and then processes it as described below. No one knows what the other orders are until the computer resolves the auction. (Perhaps have the trades encrypted.)
3) All orders must be input as an individual's supply or demand curve for that stock. A limit order is one (crude) way to do this: I will buy N shares at $X/share, or any price below; nothing otherwise. But you could be more complex.
4) Once the computer gets all orders, it computes the Pareto-optimal auction resolution, where everyone is better off, by their stated supply or demand curve, than they were before. In the likely event there is no unique Pareto-optimal solution, the computer does all it can to "split the difference". For example, if the traders are just one person selling at a limit order of $10 and another buying at a limit order of $20, both buying the same number of shares, the computer processes it by making them exchange at $15/share.
This eliminates the ability to have a special advantage due to being close to the floor and prevents anomalous trades from going through: any trade you put in *expressly* identifies an outcome you would be happy to take, eliminating the one-cent trades we saw. And because no one knows anyone else's offer, no one can profit from sussing out other traders' supply/demand curves.
Well, submarines are neither cheap, nor easy.... And if the bad guys do go that route - well, that's what the Navy is for.
Submarines are certainly cheap *enough*. Remember, Colombian druglords have already used crude diesel-powered submersibles that *their men* constructed to smuggle drugs into the US. Some have been intercepted (they're usually able to scuttle them and destroy the evidence before being picked up), but not all.
If some can get through (and I thought submarines were really hard to detect anyway), which they have been proven to be capable of, they could just send a nuke-loaded one to a port city. Definitely seems like a big blind spot in our defenses, and many times more accessible than an ICBM for would-be attackers. That makes submarines, not ICBMs, the critical attack vector (or whatever security experts call it), so we should not be spending much for defense against ICBMs until we have our submarine defenses shored up.
That said, I work in a related field, and I wouldn't mind receiving the money for such quixoticity.
I don't think it's a matter of sanity. It's quite possible that someone knows right from wrong, but is completely unable to control themselves. Therefore they're not insane, but they pose a risk to society. So what do we do? Do we have to let them out and wait for them to commit a crime? Or can we commit them?
The problem there that sticks out for me is that we don't really have a common, intermediate option of, "you have to be kept away from others, though you haven't done anything wrong [or have served your time]". The closest we have, like you mention, is quarrantining people. So, at the very least, for this kind of civil commitment, it should expressly be designed to *not* be punishment: basically, it should be like a well-furnished apartment that you just can't leave, but are otherwise allowed to interact with the world.
Alternatively, there is putting them in an insane asylum. I don't know if this what's being done here, but again, there are minimum standards that this option should meet so that it doesn't effectively extend the punishment. Here, that standard should be that they actually try to treat the person's violent tendencies, with a serious committment to making him better so he can be released. But I'm guessing the state doesn't like the idea of possible release, so that's probably not happening either. Go fig.
And strange as it may sound, the mechanic probably has a deeper understanding of how your car works than your doctor has of how the kludge-on-kludge known as the human body works.
I've seen enough of this crap to find it plausible. Doctors try to maintain priesthood image of being unquestionable experts with exclusive access to God^W^W^W medical knowledge, when really, they're not perfect. No matter how much medical school you go to, you can't be expected to know everything, and involvement of the patient is necessary as a check -- because who else will even know the doctor made a mistake, when their response is "no action".
Yes, it most certainly *is* a counter. The doctors are supposed to notice this stuff. I'm sure the doctor knew what medications she was taking. If the doctor failed to consider such a critical possibility, then they have nothing to complain about when patients try to make up for their failings, even if sometimes they go overboard with it.
I think too many people are confused between "money for education that does NOT have to be repaid" and "money for education that DOES have to be repaid).
Why shouldn't they be? The government fosters exactly this confusion with their "instantly forgiven" loans to the car companies and the loans that get "repaid, 5 years ahead of schedule" with... other government loans.
Okay, sorry, just had to rant about that and it was sorta on topic.
we have an overabundance of mediocre people with a degree.... we're producing fewer and fewer people with degrees in science and technology fields and more people with degrees which have little direct applicability in the workforce.
And I'm NOT being condescending regarding vocational programs. There's talent, skill, and dedication required for those jobs which I do NOT possess.
We've been content to let other people do the "hard work" and encouraged many of our smartest and most talented people to pursue "quick-and-easy" money in areas like the financial industry to the ultimate detriment of other industries
The bottom line is that we need to encourage people to get education in areas where they can succeed AND which are in demand by the market. If someone wants to get a degree in a field not in demand, that's their business, but I don't think merely "getting a degree" should be the end goal nor encouraged.
Damn. Wish I hadn't just run out of mod points. Everyone involved discussing education policy should be aware of exactly these points (okay, maybe not your personal vocational skills, but the need for more people to go into them and for society to respect them more so people don't shun these roles out of fear of low status).
Yes, I read that part, I understand the point -- it's not a problem now, but could be if carmakers aren't careful with wireless features. I was just trying to be funny. And failing, I guess...
Because I'll disable the canvas tag on by browser and write an add-on for Firefox that does the same thing for users that aren't as tech-savvy. That's how the web works (or is suppsoed to): I get to decide what to do with your markup on my machine.
Some modded that funny, but that's exactly the shit I'm afraid of and hope we can prevent from ever happening: having to pay for access to specific sites *on top* of paying for internet access, despite the fact that it's extortion and the whole point of the internet is to be able to access any site someone wants to share on it.
USPS, you didn't have to be such an ass, a simple "Ok we'll give you the same treatment as Netflix and Blockbuster" would have been the right thing to do.
Even better: "Oh, saw your email yesterday. Let's take a look. Hey Gamefly: what fraction of your shipped discs are damaged in transit? Hey Netflix and other competitors: same question."
And then either:
a) "Holy-shi-ite! We *are* mishandling yours worse than the others! Sorry! We'll instruct our employees not to treat packages differently!"
b) "See, we f*** up everyone's shipments this much. No bias here!"
Yeah, you're expecting too much. Restrictions on the capabilities of the offices of elected representatives can be construed as disenfranchisement of the people he/she represents. Imagine if they were required to personally go through some labyrinthine process before they could actually cast votes. Or if their internet filter was so strict they could never use the internet to learn about issues facing them.
So, expecting that representatives have to follow the dictates of the IT cadre is a bit much.
Not that they should ever need to look at porn, but it's an issue of how aggressive the filter should be.
Shut up! These experiments were designed by high-status research doctors who made damn sure they did things the way they've always done them. You must trust them, or you hate science.
How dare you consider yourself qualified to call a result insignificant!
If I could get underpriced labor by making pension promises I wouldn't have to keep, I could have pretty innovative products too.
This little foray into cool night vision for a few ultra-rich came out of the hide of workers who had nowhere to go when the benefits they were promised got pissed away.
Fuck GM. Fuck GM long, fuck GM hard. (Don't forget to mod this troll.)
Slashdot Mirror
You mean they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots?
Yes.
Why wouldn't they want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots?
Spam.
What's so wrong about imagelogr@gmail.com being harvested by bots?
Spam.
I really don't understand why they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots.
Because they're worried it will be found by spammers and spammed.
Can someone explain to me what's so bad about imagelogr@gmail.com being harvested by bots?
Being spammed.
Maybe I should write them, at imagelogr@gmail.com, to ask why they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com to be harvested by bots.
Not a good idea, it will probably get lost in all the spam.
imagelogr@gmail.com !
Don't understand.
Well, glad you know the term(s) for it so you can learn more about at and what to call it!
Btw, I've had a flexible sigmoidoscopy, and they're not painful, they administer something IV to knock you out so it's over before you know it and you don't experience any pain, unless you count hearing yourself fart a lot afterward.
Sounds like a restatement of the simultaneously-discovered Goodhart's Law, Lucas critique, and Campbell's Law.
Basically, once you start measuring something as a proxy for what you really want to know, people start to take the proxy into account when making decisions, to the point where it becomes useless as a measure for whatever it was intended.
Here, people take these cancer tests as a measure of their probability of cancer. But once they start to treat them as reliable, they start doing more self-destructive things, destroying the correlation between the proxy (the cancer test) and the actual probability of cancer.
I don't know what principle you're appealing to, but I don't think it should be that way. All limit orders should be hidden, and here's how it should work:
1) Trading in any stock happens, for the highest volume stocks, once per minute *at most*, at pre-defined times. (That should be *plenty* of opportunities, and plenty of time to react to news, while not allowing profits for being closer to the trading floor/central computer.
2) All orders come in, a central computer stops taking orders for that stock (for that one per minute auction), and then processes it as described below. No one knows what the other orders are until the computer resolves the auction. (Perhaps have the trades encrypted.)
3) All orders must be input as an individual's supply or demand curve for that stock. A limit order is one (crude) way to do this: I will buy N shares at $X/share, or any price below; nothing otherwise. But you could be more complex.
4) Once the computer gets all orders, it computes the Pareto-optimal auction resolution, where everyone is better off, by their stated supply or demand curve, than they were before. In the likely event there is no unique Pareto-optimal solution, the computer does all it can to "split the difference". For example, if the traders are just one person selling at a limit order of $10 and another buying at a limit order of $20, both buying the same number of shares, the computer processes it by making them exchange at $15/share.
This eliminates the ability to have a special advantage due to being close to the floor and prevents anomalous trades from going through: any trade you put in *expressly* identifies an outcome you would be happy to take, eliminating the one-cent trades we saw. And because no one knows anyone else's offer, no one can profit from sussing out other traders' supply/demand curves.
Well, submarines are neither cheap, nor easy. ... And if the bad guys do go that route - well, that's what the Navy is for.
Submarines are certainly cheap *enough*. Remember, Colombian druglords have already used crude diesel-powered submersibles that *their men* constructed to smuggle drugs into the US. Some have been intercepted (they're usually able to scuttle them and destroy the evidence before being picked up), but not all.
If some can get through (and I thought submarines were really hard to detect anyway), which they have been proven to be capable of, they could just send a nuke-loaded one to a port city. Definitely seems like a big blind spot in our defenses, and many times more accessible than an ICBM for would-be attackers. That makes submarines, not ICBMs, the critical attack vector (or whatever security experts call it), so we should not be spending much for defense against ICBMs until we have our submarine defenses shored up.
That said, I work in a related field, and I wouldn't mind receiving the money for such quixoticity.
I don't think it's a matter of sanity. It's quite possible that someone knows right from wrong, but is completely unable to control themselves. Therefore they're not insane, but they pose a risk to society. So what do we do? Do we have to let them out and wait for them to commit a crime? Or can we commit them?
The problem there that sticks out for me is that we don't really have a common, intermediate option of, "you have to be kept away from others, though you haven't done anything wrong [or have served your time]". The closest we have, like you mention, is quarrantining people. So, at the very least, for this kind of civil commitment, it should expressly be designed to *not* be punishment: basically, it should be like a well-furnished apartment that you just can't leave, but are otherwise allowed to interact with the world.
Alternatively, there is putting them in an insane asylum. I don't know if this what's being done here, but again, there are minimum standards that this option should meet so that it doesn't effectively extend the punishment. Here, that standard should be that they actually try to treat the person's violent tendencies, with a serious committment to making him better so he can be released. But I'm guessing the state doesn't like the idea of possible release, so that's probably not happening either. Go fig.
And strange as it may sound, the mechanic probably has a deeper understanding of how your car works than your doctor has of how the kludge-on-kludge known as the human body works.
You're sure? You were there, I take it?
I've seen enough of this crap to find it plausible. Doctors try to maintain priesthood image of being unquestionable experts with exclusive access to God^W^W^W medical knowledge, when really, they're not perfect. No matter how much medical school you go to, you can't be expected to know everything, and involvement of the patient is necessary as a check -- because who else will even know the doctor made a mistake, when their response is "no action".
Yes, it most certainly *is* a counter. The doctors are supposed to notice this stuff. I'm sure the doctor knew what medications she was taking. If the doctor failed to consider such a critical possibility, then they have nothing to complain about when patients try to make up for their failings, even if sometimes they go overboard with it.
I think too many people are confused between "money for education that does NOT have to be repaid" and "money for education that DOES have to be repaid).
Why shouldn't they be? The government fosters exactly this confusion with their "instantly forgiven" loans to the car companies and the loans that get "repaid, 5 years ahead of schedule" with ... other government loans.
Okay, sorry, just had to rant about that and it was sorta on topic.
we have an overabundance of mediocre people with a degree. ... we're producing fewer and fewer people with degrees in science and technology fields and more people with degrees which have little direct applicability in the workforce.
And I'm NOT being condescending regarding vocational programs. There's talent, skill, and dedication required for those jobs which I do NOT possess.
We've been content to let other people do the "hard work" and encouraged many of our smartest and most talented people to pursue "quick-and-easy" money in areas like the financial industry to the ultimate detriment of other industries
The bottom line is that we need to encourage people to get education in areas where they can succeed AND which are in demand by the market. If someone wants to get a degree in a field not in demand, that's their business, but I don't think merely "getting a degree" should be the end goal nor encouraged.
Damn. Wish I hadn't just run out of mod points. Everyone involved discussing education policy should be aware of exactly these points (okay, maybe not your personal vocational skills, but the need for more people to go into them and for society to respect them more so people don't shun these roles out of fear of low status).
I salute you.
? It doesn't contain a kernel of truth that if I could physically mount your wife, I could inject viruses and spawn child processes?
Yes, I read that part, I understand the point -- it's not a problem now, but could be if carmakers aren't careful with wireless features. I was just trying to be funny. And failing, I guess...
An attacker would have to ... be able to physically mount some sort of computer on the victim's car
Yeah, and if I could physically mount your wife, I could inject her with all sorts of viruses, maybe even spawn a child process!
So, is "security hole" the next euphemism for vagina?
Getting the brakes to fail at any time after the car is in motion would be impressive.
Yes, I agree Toyota's Priuses are impressive ... but not for this reason.
Because I'll disable the canvas tag on by browser and write an add-on for Firefox that does the same thing for users that aren't as tech-savvy. That's how the web works (or is suppsoed to): I get to decide what to do with your markup on my machine.
Some modded that funny, but that's exactly the shit I'm afraid of and hope we can prevent from ever happening: having to pay for access to specific sites *on top* of paying for internet access, despite the fact that it's extortion and the whole point of the internet is to be able to access any site someone wants to share on it.
Yes, a better one (which I would have made an f/p if I'd seen this sooner) would be:
"Hey ass-tronomers: will this make it easier to see Uranus?"
I know you try to be PC and all, but I think you can get away with gendered language on this one ...
USPS, you didn't have to be such an ass, a simple "Ok we'll give you the same treatment as Netflix and Blockbuster" would have been the right thing to do.
Even better: "Oh, saw your email yesterday. Let's take a look. Hey Gamefly: what fraction of your shipped discs are damaged in transit? Hey Netflix and other competitors: same question."
And then either:
a) "Holy-shi-ite! We *are* mishandling yours worse than the others! Sorry! We'll instruct our employees not to treat packages differently!"
b) "See, we f*** up everyone's shipments this much. No bias here!"
Yeah, you're expecting too much. Restrictions on the capabilities of the offices of elected representatives can be construed as disenfranchisement of the people he/she represents. Imagine if they were required to personally go through some labyrinthine process before they could actually cast votes. Or if their internet filter was so strict they could never use the internet to learn about issues facing them.
So, expecting that representatives have to follow the dictates of the IT cadre is a bit much.
Not that they should ever need to look at porn, but it's an issue of how aggressive the filter should be.
Shut up! These experiments were designed by high-status research doctors who made damn sure they did things the way they've always done them. You must trust them, or you hate science.
How dare you consider yourself qualified to call a result insignificant!
(Bad mood today, sorry.)
If I could get underpriced labor by making pension promises I wouldn't have to keep, I could have pretty innovative products too.
This little foray into cool night vision for a few ultra-rich came out of the hide of workers who had nowhere to go when the benefits they were promised got pissed away.
Fuck GM. Fuck GM long, fuck GM hard. (Don't forget to mod this troll.)
Given their current fertility rate, apparently not ;-)
Yes. I've heard of a lot more non-priest scientists though.
(Even when factoring in the greater number of non-priests.)