I always was interested in science, and when I was younger, it drove me to learn things on my own. While I was in high school, I substituted for a teacher a few times...
But I was always amazed at how some people were so baffled by the simplest things that are very easy to learn about.
The everyday person needs to know more science. Unfortunately, many people who do know a lot of science act religious. They treat people who don't know it as inferior, and I believe that turns a lot of people away from learning about it. Not because they think science is less valid, but in a sense, because they don't want to be like the jackass that just got done making them feel worthless.
Honestly... I think people who know a lot of science are probably the biggest problem with science education.
Seeing as Hydrogen is the source of the vast majority of the entire known universe's energy... I think you need to reexamine that statement. Hydrogen is what we're trying to use for Fusion technology, and Hydrogen is very efficient at storing energy for later use. Much more efficient than batteries.
I'm confused... how can 2012 be attributed to Christian myth even by the most loose of interpretations?
According to christian doomsday lore, several things which need to happen have not, including the mark of the beast, the universal persecution of the christian faith, the single currency system... the anti-christ...
And even then, the rapture is supposed to occur seven years before the destruction of this world... basically under christian theology, the rapture happens, then seven years of absolute devestation occurs.
Where in the world did you get the idea that the Christian faith even hints at something near 2012?
I recognize the irony... I'm a web developer... I have a test system where I purposely keep several versions of FireFox for testing purposes because of how many different versions there are out there and how many people don't update and such (along with multiple versions of IE and all).
I only posted what I did because someone called out Safari for forcing updates. (although Firefox thankfully won't update you across a major revision automatically.)
I use Opera. A lot of Firefox users argument against Opera comes down to "I don't want my browser to do everything Opera does". But guess what, I don't want to have to tell my browser to be user friendly. I just want it to be user friendly. Between all the work on my computer I don't take the time to go through all the configuration options on everything. I just can't.
Thanks for the information, I've fixed it now. But as I recall, you have the same options for both Apple and Mixrosoft updates, so I fail to see how this impacts the point I made.
You bring up a good point. This technology simply liberates the stored energy in feces, which is itself processed from the stored energy in plants.
I'm always amazed at how little variation there really is in energy production. Really there are only two sources of energy here on earth:
-Solar
-Nuclear
Even geothermal is powered by the heat of the earth's core, which is itself powered by radioactivity. (I guess one could argue that the radioactive elements were formed in a star, making them solar as well, but that's a bit too far for me.)
Browsers are only important for displaying HTML content. No one is suggesting we force Microsoft to not install TCP/IP drivers by default... that would just be stupid.
The OS can still communicated over TCP/IP (and thus can download anything, even HTML files). It could FTP behind the scenes to download it, it could use a simple TCP connection directly to a download address... there's lots of ways for an OS to talk to the internet without a browser. All that really needs to happen is for the user to choose something and the OS to make it happen.
You are again missing the point. The point is that discrimination is a method of eliminating false positives, and for the most part it is successful at doing that. The criteria could be skin color, or it could be behavior, or it could be attire, or it could be language, or it could be possessions, or it could be body language, or it could any of a million different factors.
The important part is not which types of discrimination would have resulted in the most successful outcome, the important part is that they do result in an expected outcome, and do serve a purpose... a survival instinct that is very basic to humans.
As I mentioned before, discrimination is not the problem, discrimination using irrelevant information is a problem. Pointing out how irrelevant the information is does not prove me wrong, it actually proves the point I was making.
The presumption that the parent post was going under was that the bug was implanted before information was collected... In other words they put in the kit, then go get a warrant for the computer, then the information is readable under their warrant.
My point was actually your point: they would have to have a warrant first, otherwise the only two ways to implant the bug would be getting you to do it for them (entrapment) or doing it themselves (due process).
The point was that people make discrimination an emotional issue (as you just illustrated) when discrimination is simply a process of assessing and sorting information. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, as I said, it is using irrelevant information to discriminate that is wrong.
If skin color is causualy related to crime risk, or there are common causes for the two, or there are risk factors related to the two, then discrimination based on that is simply deducing the best guess from available data. If, as is often the case with racial issues, skin color has nothing to do with what you're discriminating about, then of course, it makes no sense.
But that is not because discrimination occurred, as you suggest. It is because you use irrelevant factors to discriminate.
And further, I do not claim to know the plight of "brown skinned" individuals as you put it. I was qualifying my own statements based on my experiences. Is this one of those topics I'm not allowed to contribute to the discussion on because I was born white? I don't have an updated list lying around, so you'll have to clue me in.
Your reaction to my post is a great example of nearly every point I was making.
A bunch of feudal kings and their pope decide to slaughter people to claim their territory, and you would think it prudent to kill any European... discrimination is a stupid policy.
Whoa there, discrimination, as I've now told you many, many times, is a method of sorting data, not a conclusion. Who said anything about killing people?
I made the point that as a Jew or Muslim, seeing a white person during the crusades, and assuming they were dangerous, was not just discrimination, but smart discrimination. I made no claims in anything I've said in this entire thread about actions one should take. Discrimination is a process of coming to a conclusion.
A police officer deciding that a driver is unsafe because of ethnicity is discrimination. Pulling them over or arresting them is not discrimination, it is choice. It is an action. Discrimination has nothing to do with what choices you make, it merely has to do with the conclusions you reach.
Certainly as a Jew or Muslim during the crusades you could decide to kill all white Europeans. But that is not a logical and required extension of the conclusion that "a white person is probably dangerous to me". There are in fact several ways to act on that conclusion, and you may even not act on that conclusion.
But don't mind me. Apparently I'm racist and lots of other horrible things.
The point was that in that case, the invading armies were white, thus ethnicity was a very important and relevant set of information with which to increase the statistical relevance of your results (i.e. your ability to determine your own safety).
Anytime the data set used to discriminate is relevent to the desired statistical set, discrimination is a productive thing, no matter how offputting that might be to your own world view. The correct response to that is to improve the world so that the data set is irrelevant, not put your fingers in your ears and pretend that discrimination is an issue.
Discrimination is a method of sorting data. Nothing more. Scientists use discrimination in the scientific process to eliminate non-reproduceable effects. This has the desired effect on the statistical relevance of their results. Discrimination as a method of sorting data doesn't suddenly become bad because we apply it to people, it's just an uncomfortable truth that people aren't as altruistic and helpful as would be implied by a "discrimination free" world.
Minorities use discrimination to determine that "white people can't understand" their plight. It's the same exact method of sorting data, just on a different set of data.
And the harsh reality is that you can call it whatever you want, or demonize it how you see fit... but all that does is waste energy running in a circle instead of fixing the issues that plague the "white society" and the "non-white society".
"Discrimination is not a bad thing"... OK. I take it you have not been at the business end of discrimination and you have no idea what you are talking about.
The point went right over your head.
Discrimination is not a bad thing, discrimination based on irrelevant information is a bad thing. Racial discrimination is by definition almost always irrelevant, but discrimination is simply the process of increasing the statistical relevance of your sample. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, there's just something inherently wrong with people in general.
I am about as white as you can get. I get 'random searched' every single time I fly because I fly standby, which autoflags you.
Discrimination is not a bad thing. It's the practice of using a data set to increase the statistical relevance of your sample. It's using unrelated information to discriminate that's a bad thing. For example, during the crusades it would not at all have been bad to be suspicious, cautious and downright hostile towards white people in the Near East if you were Muslim or Jewish. You would be discriminating based on entirely relevant information.
The article says that it was weighted by sales, which means this study was self-selecting. Who buys most games? White males. What is the predominant findings? Characters are white males. All this shows is that people who buy games are similar psychologically to all other people in seeking out representations closest to themselves.
I mainly think of it as meaning "pro-civil liberties" or the opposite to authoritarianism
Well that's odd. The opposite of authortarianism is Libertarianism. No reason to invent new terms for something that already exists.
I get your point though... although it does seem a bit unobvious to make reference to a set of economic beliefs when discussing a group of idiotic policemen.
This is due to the neo-Liberal tenet that people are entirely selfish entities, plotting and scheming against one-another, the only way they should be able to express themselves is through the free market.
Isn't that argument against a lot of Liberal and neo-Liberal programs, such as socialized healthcare or the like?
I thought these people couldn't take care of themselves, not that they took care of themselves too much.
Slashdot Mirror
I always was interested in science, and when I was younger, it drove me to learn things on my own. While I was in high school, I substituted for a teacher a few times...
But I was always amazed at how some people were so baffled by the simplest things that are very easy to learn about.
The everyday person needs to know more science. Unfortunately, many people who do know a lot of science act religious. They treat people who don't know it as inferior, and I believe that turns a lot of people away from learning about it. Not because they think science is less valid, but in a sense, because they don't want to be like the jackass that just got done making them feel worthless.
Honestly... I think people who know a lot of science are probably the biggest problem with science education.
Seeing as Hydrogen is the source of the vast majority of the entire known universe's energy... I think you need to reexamine that statement. Hydrogen is what we're trying to use for Fusion technology, and Hydrogen is very efficient at storing energy for later use. Much more efficient than batteries.
Ah, well that makes more sense. I was wondering for a minute there if I skipped a chapter in Revelations...
I'm confused... how can 2012 be attributed to Christian myth even by the most loose of interpretations?
According to christian doomsday lore, several things which need to happen have not, including the mark of the beast, the universal persecution of the christian faith, the single currency system... the anti-christ...
And even then, the rapture is supposed to occur seven years before the destruction of this world... basically under christian theology, the rapture happens, then seven years of absolute devestation occurs.
Where in the world did you get the idea that the Christian faith even hints at something near 2012?
His last article submitted to slashdot had 24 pages... and over half of the replys were people loudly complaining.
He's cut it down to four. Much more reasonable. (Though still unnecessary.)
I recognize the irony... I'm a web developer... I have a test system where I purposely keep several versions of FireFox for testing purposes because of how many different versions there are out there and how many people don't update and such (along with multiple versions of IE and all).
I only posted what I did because someone called out Safari for forcing updates. (although Firefox thankfully won't update you across a major revision automatically.)
I use Opera. A lot of Firefox users argument against Opera comes down to "I don't want my browser to do everything Opera does". But guess what, I don't want to have to tell my browser to be user friendly. I just want it to be user friendly. Between all the work on my computer I don't take the time to go through all the configuration options on everything. I just can't.
Thanks for the information, I've fixed it now. But as I recall, you have the same options for both Apple and Mixrosoft updates, so I fail to see how this impacts the point I made.
Firefox's constant bitching about updating and what version I run is WAY more annoying than anything Microsoft or Apple do on my systems.
You bring up a good point. This technology simply liberates the stored energy in feces, which is itself processed from the stored energy in plants.
I'm always amazed at how little variation there really is in energy production. Really there are only two sources of energy here on earth:
-Solar
-Nuclear
Even geothermal is powered by the heat of the earth's core, which is itself powered by radioactivity. (I guess one could argue that the radioactive elements were formed in a star, making them solar as well, but that's a bit too far for me.)
Chevy is still releasing the Volt in 2010, and they already have one plant in the process of being converted to Volt-only production.
Browsers are only important for displaying HTML content. No one is suggesting we force Microsoft to not install TCP/IP drivers by default... that would just be stupid.
The OS can still communicated over TCP/IP (and thus can download anything, even HTML files). It could FTP behind the scenes to download it, it could use a simple TCP connection directly to a download address... there's lots of ways for an OS to talk to the internet without a browser. All that really needs to happen is for the user to choose something and the OS to make it happen.
You are again missing the point. The point is that discrimination is a method of eliminating false positives, and for the most part it is successful at doing that. The criteria could be skin color, or it could be behavior, or it could be attire, or it could be language, or it could be possessions, or it could be body language, or it could any of a million different factors.
The important part is not which types of discrimination would have resulted in the most successful outcome, the important part is that they do result in an expected outcome, and do serve a purpose... a survival instinct that is very basic to humans.
As I mentioned before, discrimination is not the problem, discrimination using irrelevant information is a problem. Pointing out how irrelevant the information is does not prove me wrong, it actually proves the point I was making.
The presumption that the parent post was going under was that the bug was implanted before information was collected... In other words they put in the kit, then go get a warrant for the computer, then the information is readable under their warrant.
My point was actually your point: they would have to have a warrant first, otherwise the only two ways to implant the bug would be getting you to do it for them (entrapment) or doing it themselves (due process).
Theoretically, in that case, you'd be protected by entrapment laws, the fifth amendment, and due process.
Theoretically.
What? Do you have any reading comprehension?
The point was that people make discrimination an emotional issue (as you just illustrated) when discrimination is simply a process of assessing and sorting information. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, as I said, it is using irrelevant information to discriminate that is wrong.
If skin color is causualy related to crime risk, or there are common causes for the two, or there are risk factors related to the two, then discrimination based on that is simply deducing the best guess from available data. If, as is often the case with racial issues, skin color has nothing to do with what you're discriminating about, then of course, it makes no sense.
But that is not because discrimination occurred, as you suggest. It is because you use irrelevant factors to discriminate.
And further, I do not claim to know the plight of "brown skinned" individuals as you put it. I was qualifying my own statements based on my experiences. Is this one of those topics I'm not allowed to contribute to the discussion on because I was born white? I don't have an updated list lying around, so you'll have to clue me in.
Your reaction to my post is a great example of nearly every point I was making.
Whoa there, discrimination, as I've now told you many, many times, is a method of sorting data, not a conclusion. Who said anything about killing people?
I made the point that as a Jew or Muslim, seeing a white person during the crusades, and assuming they were dangerous, was not just discrimination, but smart discrimination. I made no claims in anything I've said in this entire thread about actions one should take. Discrimination is a process of coming to a conclusion.
A police officer deciding that a driver is unsafe because of ethnicity is discrimination. Pulling them over or arresting them is not discrimination, it is choice. It is an action. Discrimination has nothing to do with what choices you make, it merely has to do with the conclusions you reach.
Certainly as a Jew or Muslim during the crusades you could decide to kill all white Europeans. But that is not a logical and required extension of the conclusion that "a white person is probably dangerous to me". There are in fact several ways to act on that conclusion, and you may even not act on that conclusion.
But don't mind me. Apparently I'm racist and lots of other horrible things.
The point was that in that case, the invading armies were white, thus ethnicity was a very important and relevant set of information with which to increase the statistical relevance of your results (i.e. your ability to determine your own safety).
Anytime the data set used to discriminate is relevent to the desired statistical set, discrimination is a productive thing, no matter how offputting that might be to your own world view. The correct response to that is to improve the world so that the data set is irrelevant, not put your fingers in your ears and pretend that discrimination is an issue.
Discrimination is a method of sorting data. Nothing more. Scientists use discrimination in the scientific process to eliminate non-reproduceable effects. This has the desired effect on the statistical relevance of their results. Discrimination as a method of sorting data doesn't suddenly become bad because we apply it to people, it's just an uncomfortable truth that people aren't as altruistic and helpful as would be implied by a "discrimination free" world.
Minorities use discrimination to determine that "white people can't understand" their plight. It's the same exact method of sorting data, just on a different set of data.
And the harsh reality is that you can call it whatever you want, or demonize it how you see fit... but all that does is waste energy running in a circle instead of fixing the issues that plague the "white society" and the "non-white society".
The point went right over your head.
Discrimination is not a bad thing, discrimination based on irrelevant information is a bad thing. Racial discrimination is by definition almost always irrelevant, but discrimination is simply the process of increasing the statistical relevance of your sample. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, there's just something inherently wrong with people in general.
I am about as white as you can get. I get 'random searched' every single time I fly because I fly standby, which autoflags you.
Discrimination is not a bad thing. It's the practice of using a data set to increase the statistical relevance of your sample. It's using unrelated information to discriminate that's a bad thing. For example, during the crusades it would not at all have been bad to be suspicious, cautious and downright hostile towards white people in the Near East if you were Muslim or Jewish. You would be discriminating based on entirely relevant information.
The article says that it was weighted by sales, which means this study was self-selecting. Who buys most games? White males. What is the predominant findings? Characters are white males. All this shows is that people who buy games are similar psychologically to all other people in seeking out representations closest to themselves.
Wait... was she saying she's running a virtual machine inside a virtual machine inside a virtual machine?
Because that's ridiculously overkill.
Well that's odd. The opposite of authortarianism is Libertarianism. No reason to invent new terms for something that already exists.
I get your point though... although it does seem a bit unobvious to make reference to a set of economic beliefs when discussing a group of idiotic policemen.
Maybe I should have used tags.
Isn't that argument against a lot of Liberal and neo-Liberal programs, such as socialized healthcare or the like?
I thought these people couldn't take care of themselves, not that they took care of themselves too much.
And we thought global warming was bad before...
Anyone remember "Inner Space"?
Heh... couldn't help but think of that movie while reading.