I have not looked at it from this angle but you are right - this is a new and innovative way. Before we were bullied and bullying indihviduals went to join military and police force. Now we have an option for the bullied person instead of going columbine - join NSA and there you can do some nasty tricks for the bullies from ol' school - I mean there is surely way to show the world that they are some monsters - there are few types to chose from. It is progress but I wonder if that is the right type of progress. Probably not but still better than shooting lost of innocents and then die yourself.
The bully did wrong but that is not main problem. Everybody makes mistakes in life. Some of us never learn the art of being a sociable human and become criminals, fully blown psychopaths or as far as gradations go - members of state administration in US. I think what is wrong here is that the whole system seems to missed out on the bullying aspect. I suppose that is because they cannot do anything to protect our privacy online anyway (NSA and other asshats) so they decided to do the fun thing instead of right thing. I guess this school and parts of law system have given a lesson of what goes as civic behaviour in US of A.
I think there is a lot to say about statistics and the understanding of that - I was shocked the first time I calculated myself the probabilities of false positive for of prostate cancer checks, Ever since I started to look at the data and question the truth in it.
There are few books that the soft scientists could do to improve but they are apparently too old to be bothered....
This makes me wonder how old were these 'researchers' then and how much of their brain mass decayed already because of old age?
In general any non physics or math study these days is soft science to me - too much shit and too much statistics that the 'researchers' do not understand themselves. But maybe there is truth in it. Maybe not. Maybe even there are people that are inclined to play silly games because of their click speed characteristic - faster than everybody else before 25 and dying of Parkinson at 35. Who knows? Maybe there are people that have slow mouse reactions but fast thinking that compensate that so they have never had to work on speed of their clicks? Other than that old people are slower then young - yes and? I guess I am an old fart because I passed age when such tragedies excited me....
The other truth is... the American Revolution wasn't started by a bunch of serfs, it was started by rich land owners who didn't like their deal...
That is the truth about almost any revolution there ever was. In reality any uprising of the masses that did not get organized by some silly or evil group from the top, failed.
I recall an interview with a judge of federal constitutional court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) about deficits in democratic system in Germany and he claimed that he does not feel any deficits. Clearly he would not as people come to him to answer constitutional questions. So I guess we have an oligarchy in Germany too. That is not a big surprise. There is no conspiracy - it would be silly if mighty and wealthy have given up a possibility to game the system. It is only reasonable that most of them do. What surprises me from time to time is that some of them might & wealthy actually see that as a danger for the system that allowed them to become and stay mighty&wealthy.
I suppose post apocalypse cancer is not such a big worry as a open broken bone which if treated well has a chance to heal at least to the point that owner of the bone can live without people supporting him/her constantly which post apocalypse is probably not really an option. So yes - if they can treat injuries this is good enough because there will be plenty of that to deal with - not only because of inconvenient env. but also because of neighbouring groups trying to win the only female around etc. I wonder only why is this question asked on geek site - after all if a fat blob of a geek ever leaves the cellar after agent of apocalypse stroke they have approximately null chances of surviving first day. This however is not that different from survival chances of the rest of humanity. If agent was strong enough to kill say 75% of society equally all over (plague did 1/3 in Europe and 1/2 in China) the chances of post apocalypse world are thin for all. I'd say prepare to survive tsunami or some other likely accident that can affect your neighbourhood. Other than that you will not survive anyway.If you do then your healthy and fit body and clear mind and adapting are the most important tools of survival. The rest is just a minor thing that may or not have an impact on your so to say post survival survival.
I suppose one can have some generic type of skill set that helps surviving. I would imagine some skills to give advantage albeit I rather think that to survive some local or less so apocalypse one needs some general characteristic like:
body in good shape. If there is a serious problem with society then your stamina, resistance to small injuries and some such are vital. Weak individual even if embedded in a group that is willing to sacrifice its resources for a fat intelligent and skillful fat blob is at risk of losing its investment.You want to be useful you cannot be sick and weak or at least not in any serious approximation of apocalypse i.e. where societal damage is going to last for longer than few months.
flexibility. That is the basis of any survival anyway. If you do not succeed one way because one tool is missing you can quickly find a replacement. If one way is blocked you try another. If you see society decaying and fast you make life saving decisions like increasing level at which you trust a stranger but if there is nobody else helping then you try what they propose anyway etc.IT seems the viking settlements in Greenland lost its ability to survive because when climate cooled down they strange as it sounds for viking tribe did not switch to food from the sea. Inflexibility kills.
having luck is vital. You have to survive impact of the agent of apocalypse, you have to survive the resulting civil strife, you have to avoid any of conditions and injuries that today are curable but may be life threatening if no medical service is available. One of the main causes of blood poisoning in medieval times was infection from decaying wisdom tooth. No skill can help avoiding such things.You just need some luck.
positive thinking goes a long way. OC in life threatening situation even most depressive of depressed start thinking about survival. Positive thinking is a great tool for survival for individual and a group.
I guess there is more but the above listed general conditions are basics and no amount of skill can help if you run out of luck, cannot see lucky condition because lost hope, or being stubborn enough to die. There are also some other issues with that - I guess the agent of apocalypse must be strong but mild enough to let big enough part of society to survive or else the discussion is rather pointless. Plaugue for instance killed somewhere around 1/3 of Europe population - it did not destroy civilization but made quite an impact. Is this enough to call it apocalypse? Large enough flying rock impact can be devastating but depending on how big it maybe devastating more for some than for others leading to war etc. In such situation being an intelligent psychopath can be very helpful. Still if some groups of humans survive the most important factors are the above with skills like hunting, fighting and knowledge about simple health helping techniques being just a bonus.
it is OT but the whole discussion about time zones is too so.
I recall watching CNN in some crap hotel somewhere where this was the only channel in a language I understood and they were talking about Middle East while consistently referring to west coast of Africa. I guess in ignorance US citizens do not occupy the first place alone - after living in many countries for years I concluded that only constant aspect of humans culture that is always clearly visible is that - ignorance.
What stroke me when I read your statement is that I noticed that not many coders I know can code properly anyway. I laugh every time I have to explain them the basics and why 'teh shit' they coded does not work. They produly disagree and search for another week or two only to produce even more shit which I promptly send back. There are quite a lot of those. In light of that I would actually welcome some coal miners - they cannot be worse and in my experience common sense is better than a finished programming course (yes I dd some of those myself so I know).
40ya most of us had only some other gray mass owners to talk to over whatever subject we worked on. the world has changed and now everybody has access the pipes - the result is that the average user of the pipes is well average (with or without a degree). The average human being cannot read with understanding anyway and does not see sense in going trough volumes of prose. It is not bad only different.
I think you both exaggerate one little bit. The concern people have about privacy issues will grow eventually. We are not there yet judging on the way the intelligent well educated masses went over blatant violations of citizens rights by NSA and other scumbags. But there is no one single thing in the universe that stays the same. Even change changes all the time. FB will change. Maybe it will fade away or maybe it will come to senses or it will be forced to or all this together etc.
I went with little pain off of FB. Now my contacts with some of my friends are bit more limited than before but hey how can one expect this moloch to fall if one does not do anything?
Furthermore, it is my opinion that FB must be destroyed.
I was never a Facebook user, but had made an account.
?????I think I know what you are trying to say but if you did 'delete' account in the same style as you described your relationship with this great company than most likely the account was still there.
I personally had a problem with deleting the account. It was not clear how to do it and easy to find the way other than google it. I could not delete the account originally because even if I remembered my pwd for reasons I did not understand I had to provide my mobile number or some such to recover account details. I managed to delete it and indeed the account was gone - at least I could not use my credentials anymore. As I did not believe they really deleted it I registered again and tried to see my old account and it was not there. But here I was with a new account - I let it stay there to be sure my ex does not do some nasty impersonating thing but for that there are plenty other platforms so I guess that is not good enough argument. Still for work related stuff people look at FB so it is better to lock your presence there in a way that cannot be directly abused with nasty photos (of which some may even be real....). This much said you can delete your FB account. Whether they delete all data from it and do not sell it to other companies is of course another matter. I think Z. is not in criminal domain yet but I would not hesitate with tar and feathers given a chance of course...
the features you attribute to Google are the same all over our nice little piece of a rock in any sufficiently big and successful organisation. There are differences between all of them. Not sure you can blame FB for anything anyway - they do not even consider privacy as an existing artifact of a living 'private' person so in certain sense they are 'better' than all the others in that they are frank about it.
Very interesting post indeed. Made me waste a nice Sunday afternoon researching this 'paradox' and the previous one that started this particular thread.
The E. paradox does not take into account faiths where there is no god or there are flawed deities, it is most likely based on, from all other things, faith originating from the Middle East deserts. I think at least in European tradition there were gods that were not, as the riddle says they should be: flawed, tempted by their own feelings and fallible i.e. like humans but with superpowers - what about them are they worthy? It also does not take into account that chance that god is not omnibenevolent - does it make such god less of a god then? Is this a reason not to believe? And the question 'can there be a reason not to believe?' is also interesting one - can a human being make a decision not to believe and if so what soft of belief was it in the first place?
Leading this line of reasoning (or rather questioning) further: If my 'decision' to believe was flawed and based on fallacies or lack of information. Can it be that again that the decision to give up particular belief is also that i.e. flawed as based on incomplete information and faulty reasoning and thus can be revoked later on? If so maybe all the anger and aggression that these discussion bring with them is irrational?
What bothers me with the discussions on religion is the aggression and verbal abuse. What bothers me also is number of irregularities in reasoning on all sides of the divide and self-righteous attitude which I would expect from one side only (yes I have biases too) - the religion bashers would do some good to read David Hume and think about what they read.
This is all for the sake of argument of course. My beliefs are mine and I am not discussing them here.Try to guess them if you like...
there is a factual problem with the summary.TFA says it all so better read it. If not read this (I hope not to mess up it too much).
It is not required of the opponent to play rock 50% of the time. The referee is using a fair coin to determine if your opponent is to play rock or not. If s/he is not forced to play rock s/he is free to chose allowing him also to chose rock 100% of time too if s/he so wishes.
it would do good to RTFA as it says the condition is determined by a judge with a fair coin at the start of each round. So yes there is a chance he will never use rock in N first rounds because s/he is not forced to AND his strategy tells him to use paper or scissors. In other words it is not only his/her strategy that decides.
I think you have to try harder. You can start from where Goedel stopped.There are unprovable statements and if you say you proved them you most likely are on the course of pseudoscience.
This unprovable thing is a big problem for some folks. Some of them want so hard to have a scientific proof of God's existence and/or creation of our universe or earth or what else. Some of them think there is a proof to the contrary. There have been quite heavy thinkers in the history esp. of Western philosophy that knew this and showed the futility of such proofs.There is a good reason religion and science do not mix.
I appreciate and prefer an educated and polite discussion about almost anything with an intelligent and educated person rather than with an idiot, religion aspect of persons intellect not playing a vital role here because, unfortunately, religion is not a characteristic separating the two.
I think using tar and feathers on public officials is always a good cause. You have a valid point tho - national standards are good because they can be changed but usually there are some intelligent people doing them. Only in US the national standards are probably unamerican (whatever that means) and if they are introduced they will probably contain the same shit that the local communities already approved to be included anyway. Why exactly US is a country in which that is so is another matter but you the chances your federal system gives you and migrate to communities that have views similar to yours. To me it looks like the one and only way to resolve problems caused by hot heads.
I do not know about religion and beliefs but my ex was a witch and it cost me dearly to divorce her. She still throws evil spells on to my account every month and the money mysteriously disappears.
If that is as you say then curse can and does work but in somewhat different way we imagined. That is interesting - is curse a curse if we know how it works (by suggestion and some such)?
Slashdot Mirror
forgot about divorce
I have not looked at it from this angle but you are right - this is a new and innovative way. Before we were bullied and bullying indihviduals went to join military and police force. Now we have an option for the bullied person instead of going columbine - join NSA and there you can do some nasty tricks for the bullies from ol' school - I mean there is surely way to show the world that they are some monsters - there are few types to chose from. It is progress but I wonder if that is the right type of progress. Probably not but still better than shooting lost of innocents and then die yourself.
The bully did wrong but that is not main problem. Everybody makes mistakes in life. Some of us never learn the art of being a sociable human and become criminals, fully blown psychopaths or as far as gradations go - members of state administration in US. I think what is wrong here is that the whole system seems to missed out on the bullying aspect. I suppose that is because they cannot do anything to protect our privacy online anyway (NSA and other asshats) so they decided to do the fun thing instead of right thing. I guess this school and parts of law system have given a lesson of what goes as civic behaviour in US of A.
I think there is a lot to say about statistics and the understanding of that - I was shocked the first time I calculated myself the probabilities of false positive for of prostate cancer checks, Ever since I started to look at the data and question the truth in it.
There are few books that the soft scientists could do to improve but they are apparently too old to be bothered....
In general any non physics or math study these days is soft science to me - too much shit and too much statistics that the 'researchers' do not understand themselves. But maybe there is truth in it. Maybe not. Maybe even there are people that are inclined to play silly games because of their click speed characteristic - faster than everybody else before 25 and dying of Parkinson at 35. Who knows? Maybe there are people that have slow mouse reactions but fast thinking that compensate that so they have never had to work on speed of their clicks? Other than that old people are slower then young - yes and? I guess I am an old fart because I passed age when such tragedies excited me....
...
The other truth is... the American Revolution wasn't started by a bunch of serfs, it was started by rich land owners who didn't like their deal...
That is the truth about almost any revolution there ever was. In reality any uprising of the masses that did not get organized by some silly or evil group from the top, failed.
I recall an interview with a judge of federal constitutional court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) about deficits in democratic system in Germany and he claimed that he does not feel any deficits. Clearly he would not as people come to him to answer constitutional questions. So I guess we have an oligarchy in Germany too. That is not a big surprise. There is no conspiracy - it would be silly if mighty and wealthy have given up a possibility to game the system. It is only reasonable that most of them do. What surprises me from time to time is that some of them might & wealthy actually see that as a danger for the system that allowed them to become and stay mighty&wealthy.
I suppose post apocalypse cancer is not such a big worry as a open broken bone which if treated well has a chance to heal at least to the point that owner of the bone can live without people supporting him/her constantly which post apocalypse is probably not really an option. So yes - if they can treat injuries this is good enough because there will be plenty of that to deal with - not only because of inconvenient env. but also because of neighbouring groups trying to win the only female around etc. I wonder only why is this question asked on geek site - after all if a fat blob of a geek ever leaves the cellar after agent of apocalypse stroke they have approximately null chances of surviving first day. This however is not that different from survival chances of the rest of humanity. If agent was strong enough to kill say 75% of society equally all over (plague did 1/3 in Europe and 1/2 in China) the chances of post apocalypse world are thin for all. I'd say prepare to survive tsunami or some other likely accident that can affect your neighbourhood. Other than that you will not survive anyway.If you do then your healthy and fit body and clear mind and adapting are the most important tools of survival. The rest is just a minor thing that may or not have an impact on your so to say post survival survival.
I guess there is more but the above listed general conditions are basics and no amount of skill can help if you run out of luck, cannot see lucky condition because lost hope, or being stubborn enough to die. There are also some other issues with that - I guess the agent of apocalypse must be strong but mild enough to let big enough part of society to survive or else the discussion is rather pointless. Plaugue for instance killed somewhere around 1/3 of Europe population - it did not destroy civilization but made quite an impact. Is this enough to call it apocalypse? Large enough flying rock impact can be devastating but depending on how big it maybe devastating more for some than for others leading to war etc. In such situation being an intelligent psychopath can be very helpful. Still if some groups of humans survive the most important factors are the above with skills like hunting, fighting and knowledge about simple health helping techniques being just a bonus.
I recall watching CNN in some crap hotel somewhere where this was the only channel in a language I understood and they were talking about Middle East while consistently referring to west coast of Africa. I guess in ignorance US citizens do not occupy the first place alone - after living in many countries for years I concluded that only constant aspect of humans culture that is always clearly visible is that - ignorance.
on the moon?
What stroke me when I read your statement is that I noticed that not many coders I know can code properly anyway. I laugh every time I have to explain them the basics and why 'teh shit' they coded does not work. They produly disagree and search for another week or two only to produce even more shit which I promptly send back. There are quite a lot of those. In light of that I would actually welcome some coal miners - they cannot be worse and in my experience common sense is better than a finished programming course (yes I dd some of those myself so I know).
40ya most of us had only some other gray mass owners to talk to over whatever subject we worked on. the world has changed and now everybody has access the pipes - the result is that the average user of the pipes is well average (with or without a degree). The average human being cannot read with understanding anyway and does not see sense in going trough volumes of prose. It is not bad only different.
To shoot Z. into the sun? Come to think of it, maybe a good idea even if it does not do anything to FB
Furthermore, it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed.
I think you both exaggerate one little bit. The concern people have about privacy issues will grow eventually. We are not there yet judging on the way the intelligent well educated masses went over blatant violations of citizens rights by NSA and other scumbags. But there is no one single thing in the universe that stays the same. Even change changes all the time. FB will change. Maybe it will fade away or maybe it will come to senses or it will be forced to or all this together etc. I went with little pain off of FB. Now my contacts with some of my friends are bit more limited than before but hey how can one expect this moloch to fall if one does not do anything?
Furthermore, it is my opinion that FB must be destroyed.
I was never a Facebook user, but had made an account.
?????I think I know what you are trying to say but if you did 'delete' account in the same style as you described your relationship with this great company than most likely the account was still there.
I personally had a problem with deleting the account. It was not clear how to do it and easy to find the way other than google it. I could not delete the account originally because even if I remembered my pwd for reasons I did not understand I had to provide my mobile number or some such to recover account details. I managed to delete it and indeed the account was gone - at least I could not use my credentials anymore. As I did not believe they really deleted it I registered again and tried to see my old account and it was not there. But here I was with a new account - I let it stay there to be sure my ex does not do some nasty impersonating thing but for that there are plenty other platforms so I guess that is not good enough argument. Still for work related stuff people look at FB so it is better to lock your presence there in a way that cannot be directly abused with nasty photos (of which some may even be real....). This much said you can delete your FB account. Whether they delete all data from it and do not sell it to other companies is of course another matter. I think Z. is not in criminal domain yet but I would not hesitate with tar and feathers given a chance of course...
the features you attribute to Google are the same all over our nice little piece of a rock in any sufficiently big and successful organisation. There are differences between all of them. Not sure you can blame FB for anything anyway - they do not even consider privacy as an existing artifact of a living 'private' person so in certain sense they are 'better' than all the others in that they are frank about it.
Very interesting post indeed. Made me waste a nice Sunday afternoon researching this 'paradox' and the previous one that started this particular thread.
The E. paradox does not take into account faiths where there is no god or there are flawed deities, it is most likely based on, from all other things, faith originating from the Middle East deserts. I think at least in European tradition there were gods that were not, as the riddle says they should be: flawed, tempted by their own feelings and fallible i.e. like humans but with superpowers - what about them are they worthy? It also does not take into account that chance that god is not omnibenevolent - does it make such god less of a god then? Is this a reason not to believe? And the question 'can there be a reason not to believe?' is also interesting one - can a human being make a decision not to believe and if so what soft of belief was it in the first place?
Leading this line of reasoning (or rather questioning) further: If my 'decision' to believe was flawed and based on fallacies or lack of information. Can it be that again that the decision to give up particular belief is also that i.e. flawed as based on incomplete information and faulty reasoning and thus can be revoked later on? If so maybe all the anger and aggression that these discussion bring with them is irrational?
What bothers me with the discussions on religion is the aggression and verbal abuse. What bothers me also is number of irregularities in reasoning on all sides of the divide and self-righteous attitude which I would expect from one side only (yes I have biases too) - the religion bashers would do some good to read David Hume and think about what they read.
This is all for the sake of argument of course. My beliefs are mine and I am not discussing them here.Try to guess them if you like...
there is a factual problem with the summary.TFA says it all so better read it. If not read this (I hope not to mess up it too much).
It is not required of the opponent to play rock 50% of the time. The referee is using a fair coin to determine if your opponent is to play rock or not. If s/he is not forced to play rock s/he is free to chose allowing him also to chose rock 100% of time too if s/he so wishes.
it would do good to RTFA as it says the condition is determined by a judge with a fair coin at the start of each round. So yes there is a chance he will never use rock in N first rounds because s/he is not forced to AND his strategy tells him to use paper or scissors. In other words it is not only his/her strategy that decides.
This unprovable thing is a big problem for some folks. Some of them want so hard to have a scientific proof of God's existence and/or creation of our universe or earth or what else. Some of them think there is a proof to the contrary. There have been quite heavy thinkers in the history esp. of Western philosophy that knew this and showed the futility of such proofs.There is a good reason religion and science do not mix.
I appreciate and prefer an educated and polite discussion about almost anything with an intelligent and educated person rather than with an idiot, religion aspect of persons intellect not playing a vital role here because, unfortunately, religion is not a characteristic separating the two.
I think using tar and feathers on public officials is always a good cause. You have a valid point tho - national standards are good because they can be changed but usually there are some intelligent people doing them. Only in US the national standards are probably unamerican (whatever that means) and if they are introduced they will probably contain the same shit that the local communities already approved to be included anyway. Why exactly US is a country in which that is so is another matter but you the chances your federal system gives you and migrate to communities that have views similar to yours. To me it looks like the one and only way to resolve problems caused by hot heads.
I do not know about religion and beliefs but my ex was a witch and it cost me dearly to divorce her. She still throws evil spells on to my account every month and the money mysteriously disappears.
If that is as you say then curse can and does work but in somewhat different way we imagined. That is interesting - is curse a curse if we know how it works (by suggestion and some such)?
we can bomb them and their ballot boxes out of the picture in a second so that is not the problem.