People won't think twice about sending you an email for stupid little things at 10:00 PM, because they're working and figure everyone else should be as well.
They can send me an email at any time they like. And I'll get round to reading it at whatever time I like.
Sometimes it's a win-win; if something's gone wrong and I can fix it remotely while drinking my coffee and then get into work without rushing, then that's fine. It's when they want an immediate response to something trivial at 4am on Christmas morning that they can FRO.
As someone who's currently in the middle of an IT outsourcing to HP, I noticed that most folks have at least six months after the official announcement before they start laying people off.
Well at least you won't be lonely if you're all suddenly looking for a job at the same time!
Yes, they may make individually bad decisions, but collectively not quite.
Only if the stupidity, in some way or another, cancels out. That's a big if. These are people, not atoms in a gas.
That's why we vote - to get rid of any outliers.
No it isn't. It's because everyone is equal before the law and should have an equal say in governance. Or (foil hat on) because the man wants to give that impression.
A strawman is when you attack apoint that was never made, namely when you brought in the moral issue and accused me of wanting to ban stupid people from voting. Even if I'd meant that (and I didn't) then frankly your tangential rantings are making a better case for it than I ever could.
It is a very common argument, that people are stupid, therefore the outcome is stupid. It's not true.
So, in what way is it not true? On one hand you certainly can't say that group of people X are stupid so when they take a specific decision Y they're 100% guaranteed to make a stupid choice Z.
But in the long run, if you bet that way, you'll be right more often than wrong.
The point is that the gain from having all people to vote is bigger than if only a selected group votes.
THat depends on how the group is selected. Say the question is about stem cell research or nuclear power. You really think 7,000 streetsweepers and 900 priests would make a better decision than 30 appropriate scientists?
That's why I want direct democracy, where you vote about specific proposals and not (unreliable) people.
Good luck on anything involving complex issues then. You'll be back to stoning heretics and burning witches in less than a generation.
Anyway, if the issue is multiple choice, you can use range voting, which has been proven to maximize voter satisfaction.
I dont see the relevance, sorry. Is this something to do with the discrete choces I mentioned? Because if it is, you've misunderstood yet again.
Central limit theorem will apply here as well.
Stop about that - you don't know what it means. There is no central point for a nominal (i.e non numeric) scale to converge on. It's like asking what the average of chicken and beef is. And no, it isn't pork.
I don't know why you assume that elected government is somehow able to protect minorities better.
Perhaps he's read some Mill or Tocqueville. You should try it.
In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a historic example where the elites protected some (non-elite) minority better than the majority of people would.
Germany in the early 1900's versus forty years later.
People have moral right to voting, even if they would make the wrong decisions.
And I said otherwise where, exactly? It doesn't make those decisions any less wrong.
You assume that if people vote, the result is average of their intelligence.
No I don't. I assume that unintelligent people might not make very good choices. You dispute that? I'd say it's almost a tautology.
Got any other strawmen you want to bring out?
Even if the average person is very stupid, if they vote, the outcome can be very smart. The reason is central limit theorem.
How does that apply to something - like voting in a candidate - which has a small number of discrete choices that don't lie on a quantifiable scale? Even if we were guessing the number of beans in a jar, it's somewhat dependent on the underestimates cancelling out the overs. That's by no means a given.
What you're saying is just a warmed up version of last year's fad, the wisdom of crowds. Tell me, if 75% of people think the sun goes round the earth and 25% think the earth goes round the sun, what's the central point we're converging on there? Perhaps the conclusion is that they both go round the moon, which is made of cheese?
But don't worry, lot of other people who consider themselves smart are making a similar mistake.
At least you're original. But don't worry, I wasn't suggesting we take your vote away.
I sincerely doubt that a judge would be able to force you to do something blatantly against the law
A very valid point, since that's exactly what's going on here. Not!
they have only the power that the laws give them
Which includes compelling someone to cease and desist from publishing defamatory material - at least while it's being determined whether it is or isn't defamatory.
Slashdot Mirror
You challenged people to come up with a historical example. No doubt you'd use that exact same "rebuttal" in any case.
Yes, it serpently is!
They can send me an email at any time they like. And I'll get round to reading it at whatever time I like.
Sometimes it's a win-win; if something's gone wrong and I can fix it remotely while drinking my coffee and then get into work without rushing, then that's fine. It's when they want an immediate response to something trivial at 4am on Christmas morning that they can FRO.
24/7 staff ... that's two normal guys, an amputee and a midget?
Man, you must have *really* sucked!
Well at least you won't be lonely if you're all suddenly looking for a job at the same time!
Hello, Bill.
But it wasn't the only cheap OS - what about CP/M?
Are all your posts full of pretention twaddle?
Only if the stupidity, in some way or another, cancels out. That's a big if. These are people, not atoms in a gas.
No it isn't. It's because everyone is equal before the law and should have an equal say in governance. Or (foil hat on) because the man wants to give that impression.
A strawman is when you attack apoint that was never made, namely when you brought in the moral issue and accused me of wanting to ban stupid people from voting. Even if I'd meant that (and I didn't) then frankly your tangential rantings are making a better case for it than I ever could.
So, in what way is it not true? On one hand you certainly can't say that group of people X are stupid so when they take a specific decision Y they're 100% guaranteed to make a stupid choice Z.
But in the long run, if you bet that way, you'll be right more often than wrong.
THat depends on how the group is selected. Say the question is about stem cell research or nuclear power. You really think 7,000 streetsweepers and 900 priests would make a better decision than 30 appropriate scientists?
Good luck on anything involving complex issues then. You'll be back to stoning heretics and burning witches in less than a generation.
I dont see the relevance, sorry. Is this something to do with the discrete choces I mentioned? Because if it is, you've misunderstood yet again.
Stop about that - you don't know what it means. There is no central point for a nominal (i.e non numeric) scale to converge on. It's like asking what the average of chicken and beef is. And no, it isn't pork.
Perhaps he's read some Mill or Tocqueville. You should try it.
Germany in the early 1900's versus forty years later.
And I said otherwise where, exactly? It doesn't make those decisions any less wrong.
No I don't. I assume that unintelligent people might not make very good choices. You dispute that? I'd say it's almost a tautology.
Got any other strawmen you want to bring out?
How does that apply to something - like voting in a candidate - which has a small number of discrete choices that don't lie on a quantifiable scale? Even if we were guessing the number of beans in a jar, it's somewhat dependent on the underestimates cancelling out the overs. That's by no means a given.
What you're saying is just a warmed up version of last year's fad, the wisdom of crowds. Tell me, if 75% of people think the sun goes round the earth and 25% think the earth goes round the sun, what's the central point we're converging on there? Perhaps the conclusion is that they both go round the moon, which is made of cheese?
At least you're original. But don't worry, I wasn't suggesting we take your vote away.
And he made the trains run on time!
The problem with the public is this.
Think of how stupid the average person is; well, half of the public are stupider than that.
You must be new here - it's either that, or not dating at all.
Probably after the nuclear war.
Or rather, didn't...
LOL. Was he standing on your lawn too?
You know, that sounds like a good idea for a movie. You could do it in a serious way, but I think it would be better played for laughs.
75% of kids are always below average; it's a mathematical fact.