Yes, and letting the weak die off would make the species stronger too - but we don't do it. Modern medicine is used to keep people from dying, and yes, this has adverse effects on the gene pool, but it's better than the alternative.
As to your second point, probably lots - but that isn't a problem in itself - we have to continue to carefully check and control the vaccinations that are mandated to ensure they don't become pointless or excessive.
Obviously I didn't mean a literal 5 seconds. Yes, reasearch takes up parent's already valuable time. So what - that's a responsibility of parenting, if you care, you can make time. Yeah, it hard - but that is parenting. You have to make a choice the child can not.
As to Penn and Teller, they are not missing the point - they knew that argument doesn't apply to the individual child - it doesn't make it less valid.
Deadly. Bullshit is both very funny, and makes a lot of incredibly good points. It's not a replacement for reasearching a subject, but in addition to, and for some comedy, it's great.
I'm by no means saying schools promote an anit-vaccination agenda (at least, here in the UK, while I was at school - albiet it was a little back, I never saw that). My point was more that they are teaching people to believe that their 'opinions' can transcend reason and fact, and be right regardless.
No - I'm sorry, but you can't just write it off like that. I'm not saying they should look into every little thing in depth - what they should do is know who to listen to, and when they truly can't decide - then do some research. Everyone should be capable of this - if not, then they should learn. Yes, I know it's wrong to actually expect something of people, but come on..
An episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit says it, and says it well. Even presuming the cases of vacination causing autism were not bullshit, it'd still be worse to not vaccinate all our kids - more would end up dead than would end up autistic.
Of course, people don't see it that way, they just like their knee-jerk responses. I literally can not believe that people actually still refer to something so discredited. People need to spend 5 seconds doing some goddamn research on an issue - and not just looking for things to confirm what they think.
I blame the rise of the schooling system going all 'no opinion can be wrong' - it's such obvious crap, and yet people seem to believe it. I can say it's my opinion the sky is blue all day long, it doesn't make it true. Sure, some opinions - ones of taste, can not be wrong, as they are something inherant to you, but too many parents, when you try and explain that there is no reason to fear vaccinations, will just refuse to listen, tell you to stop 'telling them what to do with their children' and it's 'their opinion' that the vaccines are bad. It's such rubbish. Not only that, but people have somehow managed to grow up seeing all discussion as someone else trying to force you onto their side. The point of discussion is to try and see where the differences in your opinion are - if the other person can convince you that you are wrong, that's excellent - you have just gained something. Likewise if you can show them. Instead, people just refuse to listen to the other side of an argument.
People need to learn that being wrong isn't something bad - and that you sure as hell do not have a right to never be wrong. I get it, these parents want to look after their kids - and who can blame them for that? What I can blame them for is not actually caring enough to check what is actually good for them.
I disagree with that post - yes, they have put features that are not commonly used and into an interface that wasn't commonly used - but to assume that this means it is a stupid move is wrong. Those functions were not used because they didn't exist. That interface wasn't used because it was hard to use. The new interface and new functions might actually be really useful to the user. I'm not saying they are, but that argument is flawed.
Integrating everything into one thing seems like a poor idea. Sure, it makes it a little easier for the dev, but in the end, you are just learning 5 times the amount of Opa when you could learn each thing. Not only that, but can one thing really do all those tasks the other things do, and do it as well? Even if it can, it's harder to keep all of those on a level, you can't replace those parts if you find something better. It just seems to me that splitting things down into the parts seems like something we should be doing, not reversing. I also really don't like the whole compiling to JavaScript behaviour. Maybe just because I don't like JavaScript.
Well there is a pessemistic viewpoint. It could happen - not saying it will for sure, but it definitely has a chance of happening. I would say it is even likely, but that is probably just me wishing that.
OK, so after a great many comments debating this, I am forced to admit I was wrong, it's not a better system given it simply trades off the issues, and even though for me the issues for the replacement system are less problematic, for the majority of cases, the current system works better. That said, a lot of the issues with it are superficial and more about adoptation than the actual system.
The real solution then is that we start being smarter about timing. The answer to the internet problem is everyone using things like the HTML5 time tag where you provide a version of the time in UTC (or at least with time zone) so that times can be automatically converted to the local time for the reader. Things like this and giving computers the ability to show things in the best format for the user is the best solution I can see.
The benefit is know what absolute time people are talking about all the time, and the downside is people having to change their ways. For me, that's an easy call - I realise that that isn't the case for everyone else - and I'm not saying this is a viable idea to implement, just that for me, personally, I'd rather see it that way.
You are right, it's not solving a problem, it's changing it.
Current system: If someone tells you the time, you know relatively what they will be doing at said time. You can't work out when that is without your timezone and their timezone.
Other system: If someone tells you the timezone, you know when it is. You don't know what they'll be doing at the time unless you have their timezone, and you don't know what you'll be doing a the time unless you have your time zone.
It's the same issues but in reverse. It's about what is more useful to know by default - and that varies from person to person.
Absolute time does exist. If you call it UTC, it's absolute. Sure, it's arbitary, but it's absolute.
My point is, if you use a set time and let everyone work out what that time means to them, everyone knows when you are talking about, if you use a time-zone shifted time, then if they don't know your time zone and their time zone, they can't work it out.
Less obscure is a matter of perspective. You see it as that way as you were bought up with the relative system. It makes more sense for the absolute value to be set everywhere, rather than mixing absolute and relative time.
I disagree, I just think time would become more arbitary. A day in time wouldn't necesarily match up to a day in that planet's time. Ideally we'd find an arbitary standard - I'll go with xs since the big bang - if we can get an accurate time for that to have happened, it seems an appropriate starting place. As to an x, it'd be some unit of time that was reproducable, so as the metre is light travelling in a set period of time, something like that. That would become our universal time.
So instead of saying '4pm' when you mean a relative time, you'd say '+4h' for example, and then everyone could take that and use it. Yes, it's a shift from the way people currently think, that doens't make it bad.
Obviously, this is not something people would be willing to transition to. I'm not suggesting this is a realistic idea, just that if I were designing the system from scratch I'd do it that way.
Again, you are thinking of it wrong. You'd still know that place X is in that timezone, and they are X hours ahead or behind. Instead of going 'so the time there is x o'clock' you go 'so morning there is x o'clock' and adjust that instead. The issue is the way you think about it. All the things you use the time for in local terms is relative - morning is realtive to the sunrise, breakfast is relative to morning, work is relative to morning, etc... But the time of the place should be absolute. The suggestion is totally wrong in that it would get rid of the need to know how far ahead or behind a place is - that's still information you'd need to know, but instead of adjusting the time, it'd just adjust the named times we have (noon, midnight, morning, work start etc... would change), but this way, you don't have to worry about timezones when someone gives you an absolute time: see you at 8:00 means 8:00 everywhere.
Well, not really, because what you are giving there is a relative time. The best time to feed the chickens is +4h from mid-day. Then everyone knows what time mid-day is in their zone, job done. Absolute time being absolute seems like a good plan. Your issue is you are confusing the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and letting the weak die off would make the species stronger too - but we don't do it. Modern medicine is used to keep people from dying, and yes, this has adverse effects on the gene pool, but it's better than the alternative.
As to your second point, probably lots - but that isn't a problem in itself - we have to continue to carefully check and control the vaccinations that are mandated to ensure they don't become pointless or excessive.
Heh, I had the same thought just after I hit post.
Obviously I didn't mean a literal 5 seconds. Yes, reasearch takes up parent's already valuable time. So what - that's a responsibility of parenting, if you care, you can make time. Yeah, it hard - but that is parenting. You have to make a choice the child can not.
As to Penn and Teller, they are not missing the point - they knew that argument doesn't apply to the individual child - it doesn't make it less valid.
Indeed, my poor choice of wording. Learning to correct yourself and not see it as some kind of horrible defeat is important.
Deadly. Bullshit is both very funny, and makes a lot of incredibly good points. It's not a replacement for reasearching a subject, but in addition to, and for some comedy, it's great.
I'm by no means saying schools promote an anit-vaccination agenda (at least, here in the UK, while I was at school - albiet it was a little back, I never saw that). My point was more that they are teaching people to believe that their 'opinions' can transcend reason and fact, and be right regardless.
No - I'm sorry, but you can't just write it off like that. I'm not saying they should look into every little thing in depth - what they should do is know who to listen to, and when they truly can't decide - then do some research. Everyone should be capable of this - if not, then they should learn. Yes, I know it's wrong to actually expect something of people, but come on..
An episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit says it, and says it well. Even presuming the cases of vacination causing autism were not bullshit, it'd still be worse to not vaccinate all our kids - more would end up dead than would end up autistic.
Of course, people don't see it that way, they just like their knee-jerk responses. I literally can not believe that people actually still refer to something so discredited. People need to spend 5 seconds doing some goddamn research on an issue - and not just looking for things to confirm what they think.
I blame the rise of the schooling system going all 'no opinion can be wrong' - it's such obvious crap, and yet people seem to believe it. I can say it's my opinion the sky is blue all day long, it doesn't make it true. Sure, some opinions - ones of taste, can not be wrong, as they are something inherant to you, but too many parents, when you try and explain that there is no reason to fear vaccinations, will just refuse to listen, tell you to stop 'telling them what to do with their children' and it's 'their opinion' that the vaccines are bad. It's such rubbish. Not only that, but people have somehow managed to grow up seeing all discussion as someone else trying to force you onto their side. The point of discussion is to try and see where the differences in your opinion are - if the other person can convince you that you are wrong, that's excellent - you have just gained something. Likewise if you can show them. Instead, people just refuse to listen to the other side of an argument.
People need to learn that being wrong isn't something bad - and that you sure as hell do not have a right to never be wrong. I get it, these parents want to look after their kids - and who can blame them for that? What I can blame them for is not actually caring enough to check what is actually good for them.
I disagree with that post - yes, they have put features that are not commonly used and into an interface that wasn't commonly used - but to assume that this means it is a stupid move is wrong. Those functions were not used because they didn't exist. That interface wasn't used because it was hard to use. The new interface and new functions might actually be really useful to the user. I'm not saying they are, but that argument is flawed.
Ah, indeed, that was a poor choice of term to say the least.
Integrating everything into one thing seems like a poor idea. Sure, it makes it a little easier for the dev, but in the end, you are just learning 5 times the amount of Opa when you could learn each thing. Not only that, but can one thing really do all those tasks the other things do, and do it as well? Even if it can, it's harder to keep all of those on a level, you can't replace those parts if you find something better. It just seems to me that splitting things down into the parts seems like something we should be doing, not reversing. I also really don't like the whole compiling to JavaScript behaviour. Maybe just because I don't like JavaScript.
Well there is a pessemistic viewpoint. It could happen - not saying it will for sure, but it definitely has a chance of happening. I would say it is even likely, but that is probably just me wishing that.
OK, so after a great many comments debating this, I am forced to admit I was wrong, it's not a better system given it simply trades off the issues, and even though for me the issues for the replacement system are less problematic, for the majority of cases, the current system works better. That said, a lot of the issues with it are superficial and more about adoptation than the actual system.
The real solution then is that we start being smarter about timing. The answer to the internet problem is everyone using things like the HTML5 time tag where you provide a version of the time in UTC (or at least with time zone) so that times can be automatically converted to the local time for the reader. Things like this and giving computers the ability to show things in the best format for the user is the best solution I can see.
Presmuing no FTL travel.
You are presuming a metric time where a metric day is an earth day - in a world where people live on many planets - that may not be the best option.
The benefit is know what absolute time people are talking about all the time, and the downside is people having to change their ways. For me, that's an easy call - I realise that that isn't the case for everyone else - and I'm not saying this is a viable idea to implement, just that for me, personally, I'd rather see it that way.
I completely agree - doesn't mean I think it'll ever happen.
You are right, it's not solving a problem, it's changing it.
Current system: If someone tells you the time, you know relatively what they will be doing at said time. You can't work out when that is without your timezone and their timezone.
Other system: If someone tells you the timezone, you know when it is. You don't know what they'll be doing at the time unless you have their timezone, and you don't know what you'll be doing a the time unless you have your time zone.
It's the same issues but in reverse. It's about what is more useful to know by default - and that varies from person to person.
Absolute time does exist. If you call it UTC, it's absolute. Sure, it's arbitary, but it's absolute. My point is, if you use a set time and let everyone work out what that time means to them, everyone knows when you are talking about, if you use a time-zone shifted time, then if they don't know your time zone and their time zone, they can't work it out.
Less obscure is a matter of perspective. You see it as that way as you were bought up with the relative system. It makes more sense for the absolute value to be set everywhere, rather than mixing absolute and relative time.
I disagree, I just think time would become more arbitary. A day in time wouldn't necesarily match up to a day in that planet's time. Ideally we'd find an arbitary standard - I'll go with xs since the big bang - if we can get an accurate time for that to have happened, it seems an appropriate starting place. As to an x, it'd be some unit of time that was reproducable, so as the metre is light travelling in a set period of time, something like that. That would become our universal time.
So instead of saying '4pm' when you mean a relative time, you'd say '+4h' for example, and then everyone could take that and use it. Yes, it's a shift from the way people currently think, that doens't make it bad. Obviously, this is not something people would be willing to transition to. I'm not suggesting this is a realistic idea, just that if I were designing the system from scratch I'd do it that way.
Yes, but UTC isn't used for most things - most people use timezone-adjusted times.
Again, you are thinking of it wrong. You'd still know that place X is in that timezone, and they are X hours ahead or behind. Instead of going 'so the time there is x o'clock' you go 'so morning there is x o'clock' and adjust that instead. The issue is the way you think about it. All the things you use the time for in local terms is relative - morning is realtive to the sunrise, breakfast is relative to morning, work is relative to morning, etc... But the time of the place should be absolute. The suggestion is totally wrong in that it would get rid of the need to know how far ahead or behind a place is - that's still information you'd need to know, but instead of adjusting the time, it'd just adjust the named times we have (noon, midnight, morning, work start etc... would change), but this way, you don't have to worry about timezones when someone gives you an absolute time: see you at 8:00 means 8:00 everywhere.
Well, not really, because what you are giving there is a relative time. The best time to feed the chickens is +4h from mid-day. Then everyone knows what time mid-day is in their zone, job done. Absolute time being absolute seems like a good plan. Your issue is you are confusing the two.