... it sounds elitist, but people as a whole are dumb.
Let's say, People as a group are dumb, because as a group they act like a herd - or a mob - and stop thinking individually. Sadly it can be tough to change someone's mind once they have joined a herd, because "everybody knows" that they have already chosen the correct herd.
More importantly, people act irrationally, including making choices that are against their own interests. Sometimes this makes sense in a greater context, like altruistically rescuing another; the community lives longer as a whole if people are willing to risk themselves for each other. But often it does not make sense, like an individual supporting a political party because of agreement with some positions (say, socially conservative) while ignoring other positions that would not benefit the individual (say, pro-big-business). Unfortunately, since the US political parties are large catch-all take-it-or-leave-it packages, it is unlikely that ANYONE is totally in agreement with EITHER side.
I worked in computer telephony. Personally I agree with you, but: Music on hold, with occasional sprightly reminders of how much someone cares about your call, was considered an IMPORTANT FEATURE by our customers - the people buying phone systems. After all, if callers hear silence they might think that they were disconnected.
Which stories was the filter trying to block, and why, and how true/untrue were they? And which stories were getting rebroadcast more, which multiplies the score? We need statistics, and research conducted in parallel by responsible proponents of opposing viewpoints all around. Fake things purporting to be real things should be blocked from both sides. Of course, how can one do that without totally blocking all comedians and irony and sarcasm?
Well, they can program, sort of, for limited data sets and valid input and careful usage. Then they are totally shocked when programming for realtime continuous data and corrupted input and full protocol validation isn't as simple. And once in management can't understand why their schedules never work.
>>> you only like democracy when it goes your way, otherwise you pout.
and this differs from the other side . . . . how? The Republicans pouted with a vow to put all their efforts into making Obama a one-term president, and spent the remaining 8 years throwing spanners and sabots into the works. The establishment republicans all pouted when Trump won their primary out from under their control.
>>> We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.
Yes, some of you did. And your representatives in government spent 8 years doing NOTHING but gamesmanship, So now that it's almost exactly an even split of the population - with your guy winning even though he LOST popular vote - let's count up how much "alert media to get it all on TV" your guy got. (One must admit, even admire, his talent in the publicity fields; how he convinces people that he is at the same time an elite billionaire and an anti-elite little guy is beyond me.)
No. They don't. Wyoming has 142.7K people for each electoral vote; New York has 519.1K people for each electoral vote. That's means a Wyoming voter gets about 3.5 times as much weight as a New York voter, yet New York has 36.7 million people vs Wyoming's 0.5 million.
When the founders made this compromise / handicap system to balance the state populations, the largest to smallest state ratio was 19.1. Now it's 73.4. But the small states still get the same bonus 2 senators (or 2 electors) - on top of having their number of representatives rounded way up so they get at least one
The discussion was not about selling to foreign markets; the discussion was about importing from foreign markets, which is the real action that is usually referred to as "exporting jobs". And no, I'm not interested in trade wars; I want my cheap chocolate and cookies like Colbert wants his tube socks. But in order to get that, someone overseas has a job that isn't being done here, and making money that isn't being recirculated into the economy here.
I was reacting to the AC post which - as I read it - seemed to be suggesting that "liberal" positions led to the workforce collapsing. Liberals are not the ones exporting jobs to cheap labor overseas; that's being done by the owners (managers?) of the companies.
The labor force was collapsed by CAPITALISTS, the people owning and running businesses, and they tend to associate "conservative" and "Republican" rather than "liberal". They replaced people with machinery, rather than the utopian vision of the 1950s in which people would just work half-time with the help of machinery and get paid the same - a vision that anticipated automation as "better power tools" rather than "INDEPENDENT power tools that don't need an operator thank you goodbye". BTW I'm a software engineer, and my last job vanished because of technological obsolescence and management failure to diversify in parallel with supporting legacy installations. Those jobs - that whole company - is never coming back either.
>>>... phone companies haven't already been ordered to provide the caller's number themselves rather than allow the caller to do so.
I used to work in telephone systems. The ability to set an ID was INTENDED to allow reasonable situations, e.g. any outgoing call from a switchboard showing the general switchboard number (or perhaps a departmental number) rather than the individual number of the switchboard's "hunt group" by which the call is actually controlled in the PSTN. If you specify the definition of "spoofing" as setting a caller ID that does not reverse-identify to the same owner, I agree with you 100% (even though that would eliminate some old-style legitimate uses, like a doctor being able to call from a hospital but have the caller ID show his office number) (which was a useful trick when using someone else's phone, before everyone had their own cellphone).
It's only hard to do (a) quietly, and (b) selectively. A quick search suggests 16 cities (or metro areas) with 10 to 20+ million people each. Of course, to do that quickly, one would have to be willing to destroy a LOT of infrastructure and technology, and probably lose a lot of useful people as well. OTOOH the need to contain the damage and build new cities would provide something for the rest of society to do.
I did a book report in the early 70s about a book in the early 60s including visionary essays from the likes of Buckminster Fuller about how "there IS enough to go around", and Margaret Mead about how societies change, and other brilliant people. All expected that by the century we're in now, people would work at most 3 days/week (to keep business running 6 days/week like usual) thanks to automation's productivity. Only a few warned of the major change required in societal valuation of "work time", a subject already in turmoil because of the ongoing transition from manual labor to knowledge-based economy.
One of the things they missed is capitalism. It takes capital to automate, and that capital expects to be repaid with interest. Another is the Puritanical heritage of work being a good thing for its own sake.
No cargo cult here. The tradition I grew up with was the Old Testament, which suggests that people are born when they're born. Not very complex. And personally I'd say the mother's life - including psychology and impact and everything else - is what takes precedence until that independent point, and it should be the individual mother's decision because she's the one who has to live with the situation either way. To some people, this ignores the clear fact that babies can survive and thrive having been premature - I did, and my niece's daughter seems to be fine - or even delivered earlier by caesarean. The big difference is that I would not impose my sentiment on those people - I'm not INSISTING they make use of this option - but their logic is internally consistent when they seek to impose their sentiment on others, because they reason correctly from an unprovable postulate.
>>> we can respect everyone's right to an opinion, and assume their opinions are formed in good faith. If we disagree with their opinions or their reasoning, then we can discuss and explain.
This rational approach does not work in practice. It would seem that there are situations in which differing rational people can have rational disagreements, and these typically rise from differing priorities or weights or assessments given to aspects of the situation - which is where the rationality breaks down. Consider the simple example of abortion (and note that this discussion is carefully worded to AVOID taking sides). The core argument balances on whether one considers a zygote to be a fully-qualified human; both sides progress logically from their consideration on that point. That core issue can then be complicated into "at what point" a zygote should be considered a fully-qualified human. The two sides of that core decision, and its extension, CANNOT by their very nature either consider the other to be at all rational. The bases on which the decision is made - the priorities and weights given to different considerations - are postulates rather than theorems. It's not enough to "rationally" dismiss an appeal to tradition or "sacred text", since there is "sacred text" on both sides; OTOH people who accept one "sacred text" typically ignore the earlier "sacred text" (an early form of deprecation). Also the "sacred text" is manifestly true, because it says it is.
OK, *you* didn't use it much. I use the SD card slot on my laptop all the time to copy images, and would want one on my next purchase as well. If Apple had replaced the SD card slot with another USB 3.0 slot, saying it's more generally useful, maybe I'd buy it; but they just keep reducing ports and reducing choices.
I agree with your core concept, but suggest an adjustment: "in the wilds" the breadth of inputs that matter is narrow and is all part of the purpose at hand. I would compare to the multitasking level of sports activities. A primitive chasing after a hunted animal (comparable to a running football play) requires enough breadth of attention to track the target (receiver/defender), continue running while weaving to avoid stepping on a rock / in a hole, and manipulate a tool or weapon, all of which further the progress of the activity. However, it does NOT involve a phone call from another hunt site asking for details about a hunt for a different kind of animal that occurred months ago, nor does it involve a spreadsheet of plans for hunts in the future.
Doesn't take devices. It's the fact that internet access is so seductively available on the same system where I'm trying to get work done. Just a little break . . . . oh, is that the time? (instead of XKCD see http://www.dorktower.com/tag/t... )
Slashdot Mirror
... it sounds elitist, but people as a whole are dumb.
Let's say, People as a group are dumb, because as a group they act like a herd - or a mob - and stop thinking individually. Sadly it can be tough to change someone's mind once they have joined a herd, because "everybody knows" that they have already chosen the correct herd.
More importantly, people act irrationally, including making choices that are against their own interests. Sometimes this makes sense in a greater context, like altruistically rescuing another; the community lives longer as a whole if people are willing to risk themselves for each other. But often it does not make sense, like an individual supporting a political party because of agreement with some positions (say, socially conservative) while ignoring other positions that would not benefit the individual (say, pro-big-business). Unfortunately, since the US political parties are large catch-all take-it-or-leave-it packages, it is unlikely that ANYONE is totally in agreement with EITHER side.
I worked in computer telephony. Personally I agree with you, but: Music on hold, with occasional sprightly reminders of how much someone cares about your call, was considered an IMPORTANT FEATURE by our customers - the people buying phone systems. After all, if callers hear silence they might think that they were disconnected.
Which stories was the filter trying to block, and why, and how true/untrue were they? And which stories were getting rebroadcast more, which multiplies the score? We need statistics, and research conducted in parallel by responsible proponents of opposing viewpoints all around. Fake things purporting to be real things should be blocked from both sides. Of course, how can one do that without totally blocking all comedians and irony and sarcasm?
Well, they can program, sort of, for limited data sets and valid input and careful usage. Then they are totally shocked when programming for realtime continuous data and corrupted input and full protocol validation isn't as simple. And once in management can't understand why their schedules never work.
If it's in a museum, does that mean that it is relegated to history?
>>> If he starts taking a pickaxe to things ...
But isn't that pretty much what he PROMISED to do?
>>> you only like democracy when it goes your way, otherwise you pout.
and this differs from the other side . . . . how? The Republicans pouted with a vow to put all their efforts into making Obama a one-term president, and spent the remaining 8 years throwing spanners and sabots into the works. The establishment republicans all pouted when Trump won their primary out from under their control.
>>> We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.
Yes, some of you did. And your representatives in government spent 8 years doing NOTHING but gamesmanship, So now that it's almost exactly an even split of the population - with your guy winning even though he LOST popular vote - let's count up how much "alert media to get it all on TV" your guy got. (One must admit, even admire, his talent in the publicity fields; how he convinces people that he is at the same time an elite billionaire and an anti-elite little guy is beyond me.)
"Borders"? You mean, hundreds of miles of ocean?
No. They don't. Wyoming has 142.7K people for each electoral vote; New York has 519.1K people for each electoral vote. That's means a Wyoming voter gets about 3.5 times as much weight as a New York voter, yet New York has 36.7 million people vs Wyoming's 0.5 million. When the founders made this compromise / handicap system to balance the state populations, the largest to smallest state ratio was 19.1. Now it's 73.4. But the small states still get the same bonus 2 senators (or 2 electors) - on top of having their number of representatives rounded way up so they get at least one
The discussion was not about selling to foreign markets; the discussion was about importing from foreign markets, which is the real action that is usually referred to as "exporting jobs". And no, I'm not interested in trade wars; I want my cheap chocolate and cookies like Colbert wants his tube socks. But in order to get that, someone overseas has a job that isn't being done here, and making money that isn't being recirculated into the economy here.
I was reacting to the AC post which - as I read it - seemed to be suggesting that "liberal" positions led to the workforce collapsing. Liberals are not the ones exporting jobs to cheap labor overseas; that's being done by the owners (managers?) of the companies.
>>> ... the alternative never ultimately helps the average citizen.
I'm sorry, did anyone think that the system exists to help the average citizen? vs. the corporations who bought the legislatures fair and square?
The labor force was collapsed by CAPITALISTS, the people owning and running businesses, and they tend to associate "conservative" and "Republican" rather than "liberal". They replaced people with machinery, rather than the utopian vision of the 1950s in which people would just work half-time with the help of machinery and get paid the same - a vision that anticipated automation as "better power tools" rather than "INDEPENDENT power tools that don't need an operator thank you goodbye". BTW I'm a software engineer, and my last job vanished because of technological obsolescence and management failure to diversify in parallel with supporting legacy installations. Those jobs - that whole company - is never coming back either.
>>> ... phone companies haven't already been ordered to provide the caller's number themselves rather than allow the caller to do so.
I used to work in telephone systems. The ability to set an ID was INTENDED to allow reasonable situations, e.g. any outgoing call from a switchboard showing the general switchboard number (or perhaps a departmental number) rather than the individual number of the switchboard's "hunt group" by which the call is actually controlled in the PSTN. If you specify the definition of "spoofing" as setting a caller ID that does not reverse-identify to the same owner, I agree with you 100% (even though that would eliminate some old-style legitimate uses, like a doctor being able to call from a hospital but have the caller ID show his office number) (which was a useful trick when using someone else's phone, before everyone had their own cellphone).
It's only hard to do (a) quietly, and (b) selectively. A quick search suggests 16 cities (or metro areas) with 10 to 20+ million people each. Of course, to do that quickly, one would have to be willing to destroy a LOT of infrastructure and technology, and probably lose a lot of useful people as well. OTOOH the need to contain the damage and build new cities would provide something for the rest of society to do.
I did a book report in the early 70s about a book in the early 60s including visionary essays from the likes of Buckminster Fuller about how "there IS enough to go around", and Margaret Mead about how societies change, and other brilliant people. All expected that by the century we're in now, people would work at most 3 days/week (to keep business running 6 days/week like usual) thanks to automation's productivity. Only a few warned of the major change required in societal valuation of "work time", a subject already in turmoil because of the ongoing transition from manual labor to knowledge-based economy.
One of the things they missed is capitalism. It takes capital to automate, and that capital expects to be repaid with interest. Another is the Puritanical heritage of work being a good thing for its own sake.
Nothing new. "If it moves, grease it; if it doesn't move, paint it." Every damn day.
No cargo cult here. The tradition I grew up with was the Old Testament, which suggests that people are born when they're born. Not very complex. And personally I'd say the mother's life - including psychology and impact and everything else - is what takes precedence until that independent point, and it should be the individual mother's decision because she's the one who has to live with the situation either way. To some people, this ignores the clear fact that babies can survive and thrive having been premature - I did, and my niece's daughter seems to be fine - or even delivered earlier by caesarean. The big difference is that I would not impose my sentiment on those people - I'm not INSISTING they make use of this option - but their logic is internally consistent when they seek to impose their sentiment on others, because they reason correctly from an unprovable postulate.
>>> we can respect everyone's right to an opinion, and assume their opinions are formed in good faith. If we disagree with their opinions or their reasoning, then we can discuss and explain.
This rational approach does not work in practice. It would seem that there are situations in which differing rational people can have rational disagreements, and these typically rise from differing priorities or weights or assessments given to aspects of the situation - which is where the rationality breaks down. Consider the simple example of abortion (and note that this discussion is carefully worded to AVOID taking sides). The core argument balances on whether one considers a zygote to be a fully-qualified human; both sides progress logically from their consideration on that point. That core issue can then be complicated into "at what point" a zygote should be considered a fully-qualified human. The two sides of that core decision, and its extension, CANNOT by their very nature either consider the other to be at all rational. The bases on which the decision is made - the priorities and weights given to different considerations - are postulates rather than theorems. It's not enough to "rationally" dismiss an appeal to tradition or "sacred text", since there is "sacred text" on both sides; OTOH people who accept one "sacred text" typically ignore the earlier "sacred text" (an early form of deprecation). Also the "sacred text" is manifestly true, because it says it is.
OK, *you* didn't use it much. I use the SD card slot on my laptop all the time to copy images, and would want one on my next purchase as well. If Apple had replaced the SD card slot with another USB 3.0 slot, saying it's more generally useful, maybe I'd buy it; but they just keep reducing ports and reducing choices.
Nah, Sisko used TECO. And wrote his own macros.
Well-said. Price/performance optimized for typical use case.
I agree with your core concept, but suggest an adjustment: "in the wilds" the breadth of inputs that matter is narrow and is all part of the purpose at hand. I would compare to the multitasking level of sports activities. A primitive chasing after a hunted animal (comparable to a running football play) requires enough breadth of attention to track the target (receiver/defender), continue running while weaving to avoid stepping on a rock / in a hole, and manipulate a tool or weapon, all of which further the progress of the activity. However, it does NOT involve a phone call from another hunt site asking for details about a hunt for a different kind of animal that occurred months ago, nor does it involve a spreadsheet of plans for hunts in the future.
Doesn't take devices. It's the fact that internet access is so seductively available on the same system where I'm trying to get work done. Just a little break . . . . oh, is that the time? (instead of XKCD see http://www.dorktower.com/tag/t... )