Very true, and let's not forget the ever-present problem of confusion between GEICO and geckos. I mean -- who knew those little crawly guys weren't qualified for insurance underwriting?
That wasn't a one-legged guy. That was Chuck Norris, with one leg tied behind his back. And he was only kicking the piñata because it looked at him the wrong way.
It's about using two extra shift keys for the non-ASCII characters. On his keyboard, he calls them "Shift2" and "Ng". This is a nice way to do languages that use the latin alphabet with a few abnormal extra characters.
It's not like...
It's not like...
It's not like...
It's not like...
But it *is* like CTRL and ALT, except that they're just for generating characters rather than calling arbitrary functions.
(Btw, anyone who refers to a new interface for accessing more characters from the same keys as "technology" is an idiot.)
If some BANK came to your school, and said hey we'll help out a bit with your accounting department functions if you will just make sure all your students use our BANK, you'd look at them like they were insane.
dunno. i am of the opinion that it should be pretty much impossible for an anonymous person to slander on the internet -- at least, it would sort of make sense that if you are being told something by someone you don't know you shouldn't consider it fact very easily.
Very good point, but there are two reasons I think the concept of slander would still be valid:
a) The cases where anonymous message reveals information that only a reliable source would have, such as a passcode.
b) Even if people *shouldn't* accept self-serving unverifiable statements at face value, they do, and thus slander can wrongfully harm someone.
Or combine this with pre-defined motion capture to attempt to train the wearer on how to re-enact the original motions (be it real dancing, DDR, or even 'Ninja Challenge' or what ever that Spike show is!)
I second this. I currently use cameras to improve my DDR form: I point the eyetoy at my feet so I can see them on the screen as I dance, and I videotape my dancing to study my feet after dancing (some are on yt). Comparing the motion captures described in the story between players would be a tremendous improvement in the ability to learn technique!
Heh, that was my reaction too: "Hold on -- are we flagging criminal convictions so that women can AVOID them, or so they can DATE them?"
Distance from North Pole to Equator along earth's surface: ~10,000 km. Distance from Earth to Sun: 150 million km. Distance from Sun to nearest other star: 42 trillion km. Distance from what women say they want in a man, to what they really want: farther still.
I don't have any particular opinion about human cloning, except for the fact that I don't see any actual point in it. Animal cloning is done to strengthen the breed, technically, so either we're advocating some kind of eugenics, which is just inherently a bad idea,
Whoa whoa whoa, you're saying that breeding better animals is bad, because it's some kind of eugenics, and eugenics is inherently a bad idea?
Hey, I just ran that through Amazon's software and here's what it turned up:
People who used that line of argumentation also argued:
-Corporations are bad because they try to make a profit. Governments are bad because they're corporations. (Specifically, non-profit corporations.) -Monopolies are bad because they have the power to manipulate the market and charge too much. Intellectual property is bad because it's a monopoly. So is all property. -Environmental protection should be a top priority because it's a prerequisite for humanity to continue existing. We shouldn't colonize other planets, because that would mess up the environment. -Murder is bad because it takes someone's life without their consent. Physician assisted suicide is murder. Therefore, it's wrong.
You make no sense; all data and models have been published and discussed at length. If you disagree with any of them, publish a paper.
"You make no sense; all astrological analysis has been published and discussed at length. If you disagree with any of their predictions, public a paper in any leading astrological journal."
The whole point of science (as opposed to groupthink) is that it's robust against individual bias. If you're saying someone can only contest a "scientific" claim if he can convince an elite circle to publish his argument (which of course would required over 10 years of study from those very same people in that field), then you don't understand science. I could make the exact same defense you just did of astrology.
You also seem to be starting from the wrong assumption that the burden of proof is on people claiming that global warming is happening and carbon emissions are dangerous. Quite to the contrary: given the potential risks, the burden of proof is on people arguing that continued massive carbon emissions are safe.
Replace "carbon emissions" with anything that has happened for more than the past 1000 years to see exactly how much you're asserting.
In fact that's a great way to gain perspective. Imagine that the scientific consensus among deerologists is that if human consumption of deer meat continues at present rates, the earth will explode in ten years. They have published, peer-reviewed papers in their field, mathematical models, etc. All top deerologists strongly endorse this hypothesis.
a) Who has the burden of proof? Of what? b) What is the minimum evidence you would require to reject that claim? (i.e., must the general public accept this hypothesis until those same deerologists admit papers that argue otherwise?)
Oh, ha ha ha. It's all fun and games until you think about all the Scottish, Welsh, and North Irish people who have to re-register all their national documents now that they live in different countries.
Which is irrelevant, you fly on planes that you rarely understand the basic principles of much less the engineering
It's certainly relevant to the point I was making. The antecedent of "them" in "our trust of them" was "the scientists proposing the theories." Airlines and cars are not built based on trust of scientists proposing these theories, but on rigorous real-world testing that confirms they hold true, and on insurers who put their own money on the line based on their estimates of the probabilistic safety of these science-driven devices.
These safeguards do not necessarily exist for the policies scientists advocate, however.
Except you can't, because the alternate statement isn't true. There is no such website; there is no such documented prediction trial of global climate metrics.
Oh, you can certainly look up the journal articles, which discuss how nasty the computer models say it will be... but that's not the same thing.
I'm sorry you don't understand the purpose of academic or scientific institutions; you are not supposed to "trust" them, you are supposed to look at their evidence and conclusions and then rationally formulate a policy based on it.
Yes, that's how it's supposed to work, but the GP is right that in practice, we are asked to base policies on our trust of them. Remember, people like Al Gore say, "Do this policy, because the scientific consensus in this area." He does not say,
"Do this policy, because this group of scientists has consistently been able to formulate correct, falsfiable, non-trivial, useful predictions, using a model that you can download at this website, and for which you can easily trace every assumption going into it, to its original scientific basis." (or any shorter version of that)
They are training an artificial neural network to emulate the human process of tracing neural connections to speed the process about 100- to 1000-fold.
So, they're training a neural network to automate the process of mapping a neural network, in the hopes of creating an intelligence that they can train to automate other processes?
But isn't quantum physics unfalsifiable in the same sense? How would you falsify the claim: "A subsystem picks a state *before* it interacts with the macroscopic environment."
Hey, this is slashdot, so that means I can use this pretense to ask the following question:
If that's a consistent phenomenon in quantum physics, it supports the "simulated reality" hypothesis, i.e., that the universe is a simulation on someone's computer. Hear me out:
If someone were to run a simulated reality, they would (as we observe in known simulated reality) take steps to minimize computational resources. Where possible, if a computation doesn't effect future states, and they can feasibly exclude it, they won't perform the calculation. Therefore, instead of running through the full laws of physics for the whole simulated universe, they would only "pick a state" of some subsystem once it becomes coupled to rest of the universe and therefore "has to" perform the computations necessary to make it appear consistent -- exactly the quantum phenomenon you describe.
It further implies that we could find lower bounds on the computational power of the simulator running the universe if there is one: just find the minimum necessary to consistently generate our current observations. If we want to crash the universe, then we just have point our observation equipment in such a way that rapidly increases the necessary computations required to continue "fooling us". This would most likely include observing the initial state of as many highly-predictable deterministic subsystems as we can, waiting, and then "checking" a random one -- that forces the universe's computer to run through all of them, just to be sure it's consistent for the one that we check.
Of course, if we crash the universe, we all "die".
If you have a 401k or other tax-deferred or tax free program with your employer, that is an IRA that can be rolled over. That site was just to explain how it works, I'm sure there are a lot of others and you can probably get advance approval from the IRS.
For me, it's more of a psychological thing: knowing that, at some point in time, I *could* just quit and plausibly live off investments is a quite a weight off my back, even if I don't exercise the option.
A year ago I applied for a mortgage. I was, if I say so myself, an ideal borrower:
-No current debt, at all. -~3 year history of paying every bill on time: cable, water, insurance, electricity, rent, etc. -Steady employment for 18 months. -No unpaid debts. -No judgments. -No kids. -Verifiable liquid assets valued at ~1/3 of value of loan. -Stable income from largest for profit employer in the area. -Income > 2x median for the area. -Applying for loan less than 2x yearly income. -Monthly payment (which would be ALL debt payments) less than 20% of gross, even for high interest rate.
BUT! Here's the kicker: I'd only had a credit card for about four months. The result? Almost no one wanted to deal with me. Why? "No credit history." All those bills don't count, after all. What's worse, freecreditreport.com did list me as having scores from the credit bureaus in the 725-740 range, but from the lenders' perspectives, they only got "insufficient data". And no, there were no flaws in my credit report.
So, the only ones that did deal with me classified me as "subprime"(!) Best offer? 80% financing at 10% interest on a 3/1 adjustable. (Unlike *real* subprime people, I'm smart enough to know that if those are the terms on the mortgage, buying a home is not a good choice.)
And, for the final kicker: ALL of them told me I needed a credit history -- which having a credit card would count toward -- of at least 2 years in order not to get "insufficient data" when they pull my credit. I would have been able to establish that if I had done EXACTLY what I did the past three years, but had moved the expenses onto a credit card and paid the full balance.
Moral: Yes, you need a credit card.
Does that satisfy your curiosity?
***
The reason I didn't expand on that before was that the AC claimed that, based on his own individual experience, that suffices as evidence that you don't need a credit card. (It doesn't.) Since he couldn't see how his wife having a credit card established his existence in the financial system, in a proof of why you don't need a credit card to exist in the financial system, argumentation looked pretty pointless, and most people don't read ACs anyway.
LOL!!! This is priceless! I point out the absurdity of one poster's pedantic use of a term to prove a point, and then I get accused of using pedantry to prove a point! You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Remember, I'm playing the EXACT same world games as the person I was originally responding to, and, continuing that process of extending meanings to meaninglessness, I can just as easily say that "At the supermarket, you do have a debt, it just gets canceled if you decide not to pay, and they return the goods to the shelf."
Now, back to the world where you don't get modded up for making phony insights through word games...
Slashdot Mirror
Very true, and let's not forget the ever-present problem of confusion between GEICO and geckos. I mean -- who knew those little crawly guys weren't qualified for insurance underwriting?
That wasn't a one-legged guy. That was Chuck Norris, with one leg tied behind his back. And he was only kicking the piñata because it looked at him the wrong way.
It's about using two extra shift keys for the non-ASCII characters. On his keyboard, he calls them "Shift2" and "Ng". This is a nice way to do languages that use the latin alphabet with a few abnormal extra characters.
...
...
...
It's not like
It's not like
It's not like...
It's not like
But it *is* like CTRL and ALT, except that they're just for generating characters rather than calling arbitrary functions.
(Btw, anyone who refers to a new interface for accessing more characters from the same keys as "technology" is an idiot.)
If some BANK came to your school, and said hey we'll help out a bit with your accounting department functions if you will just make sure all your students use our BANK, you'd look at them like they were insane.
No, a lot of them were quite okay with that.
Okay, not strictly the same thing, but colleges basically took kickbacks to steer students toward a limited selection of banks with overpriced loans.
Oh, I'm sorry, what was all that crap about universities being noble, non-profit institutions?
dunno. i am of the opinion that it should be pretty much impossible for an anonymous person to slander on the internet -- at least, it would sort of make sense that if you are being told something by someone you don't know you shouldn't consider it fact very easily.
Very good point, but there are two reasons I think the concept of slander would still be valid:
a) The cases where anonymous message reveals information that only a reliable source would have, such as a passcode.
b) Even if people *shouldn't* accept self-serving unverifiable statements at face value, they do, and thus slander can wrongfully harm someone.
Or combine this with pre-defined motion capture to attempt to train the wearer on how to re-enact the original motions (be it real dancing, DDR, or even 'Ninja Challenge' or what ever that Spike show is!)
I second this. I currently use cameras to improve my DDR form: I point the eyetoy at my feet so I can see them on the screen as I dance, and I videotape my dancing to study my feet after dancing (some are on yt). Comparing the motion captures described in the story between players would be a tremendous improvement in the ability to learn technique!
Heh, that was my reaction too: "Hold on -- are we flagging criminal convictions so that women can AVOID them, or so they can DATE them?"
Distance from North Pole to Equator along earth's surface: ~10,000 km.
Distance from Earth to Sun: 150 million km.
Distance from Sun to nearest other star: 42 trillion km.
Distance from what women say they want in a man, to what they really want: farther still.
I don't have any particular opinion about human cloning, except for the fact that I don't see any actual point in it. Animal cloning is done to strengthen the breed, technically, so either we're advocating some kind of eugenics, which is just inherently a bad idea,
Whoa whoa whoa, you're saying that breeding better animals is bad, because it's some kind of eugenics, and eugenics is inherently a bad idea?
Hey, I just ran that through Amazon's software and here's what it turned up:
People who used that line of argumentation also argued:
-Corporations are bad because they try to make a profit. Governments are bad because they're corporations. (Specifically, non-profit corporations.)
-Monopolies are bad because they have the power to manipulate the market and charge too much. Intellectual property is bad because it's a monopoly. So is all property.
-Environmental protection should be a top priority because it's a prerequisite for humanity to continue existing. We shouldn't colonize other planets, because that would mess up the environment.
-Murder is bad because it takes someone's life without their consent. Physician assisted suicide is murder. Therefore, it's wrong.
You make no sense; all data and models have been published and discussed at length. If you disagree with any of them, publish a paper.
"You make no sense; all astrological analysis has been published and discussed at length. If you disagree with any of their predictions, public a paper in any leading astrological journal."
The whole point of science (as opposed to groupthink) is that it's robust against individual bias. If you're saying someone can only contest a "scientific" claim if he can convince an elite circle to publish his argument (which of course would required over 10 years of study from those very same people in that field), then you don't understand science. I could make the exact same defense you just did of astrology.
You also seem to be starting from the wrong assumption that the burden of proof is on people claiming that global warming is happening and carbon emissions are dangerous. Quite to the contrary: given the potential risks, the burden of proof is on people arguing that continued massive carbon emissions are safe.
Replace "carbon emissions" with anything that has happened for more than the past 1000 years to see exactly how much you're asserting.
In fact that's a great way to gain perspective. Imagine that the scientific consensus among deerologists is that if human consumption of deer meat continues at present rates, the earth will explode in ten years. They have published, peer-reviewed papers in their field, mathematical models, etc. All top deerologists strongly endorse this hypothesis.
a) Who has the burden of proof? Of what?
b) What is the minimum evidence you would require to reject that claim? (i.e., must the general public accept this hypothesis until those same deerologists admit papers that argue otherwise?)
Oh, ha ha ha. It's all fun and games until you think about all the Scottish, Welsh, and North Irish people who have to re-register all their national documents now that they live in different countries.
Which is irrelevant, you fly on planes that you rarely understand the basic principles of much less the engineering
It's certainly relevant to the point I was making. The antecedent of "them" in "our trust of them" was "the scientists proposing the theories." Airlines and cars are not built based on trust of scientists proposing these theories, but on rigorous real-world testing that confirms they hold true, and on insurers who put their own money on the line based on their estimates of the probabilistic safety of these science-driven devices.
These safeguards do not necessarily exist for the policies scientists advocate, however.
Except you can't, because the alternate statement isn't true. There is no such website; there is no such documented prediction trial of global climate metrics.
... but that's not the same thing.
Oh, you can certainly look up the journal articles, which discuss how nasty the computer models say it will be
I'm sorry you don't understand the purpose of academic or scientific institutions; you are not supposed to "trust" them, you are supposed to look at their evidence and conclusions and then rationally formulate a policy based on it.
Yes, that's how it's supposed to work, but the GP is right that in practice, we are asked to base policies on our trust of them. Remember, people like Al Gore say, "Do this policy, because the scientific consensus in this area." He does not say,
"Do this policy, because this group of scientists has consistently been able to formulate correct, falsfiable, non-trivial, useful predictions, using a model that you can download at this website, and for which you can easily trace every assumption going into it, to its original scientific basis." (or any shorter version of that)
But isn't that exactly what happens everytime you complain about a problem to a doctor? "Nope, not possible, just diet and exercise."
And could you explain the basis for your assertion of an answer to a major unsolved problem in philsophy, cognition, and AI?
They are training an artificial neural network to emulate the human process of tracing neural connections to speed the process about 100- to 1000-fold.
So, they're training a neural network to automate the process of mapping a neural network, in the hopes of creating an intelligence that they can train to automate other processes?
My brain hurts...
But ... I thought the ones before '02 were just adding machines, not computers, right? And Windows Me was just a fancy way of adding numbers?
Yeah, this is the most worthless article to make slashdot for nearly a day
/. has really gone downhill since SourceForge jacked the domain from Bennett Haselton.
Yeah,
But isn't quantum physics unfalsifiable in the same sense? How would you falsify the claim: "A subsystem picks a state *before* it interacts with the macroscopic environment."
Hey, this is slashdot, so that means I can use this pretense to ask the following question:
If that's a consistent phenomenon in quantum physics, it supports the "simulated reality" hypothesis, i.e., that the universe is a simulation on someone's computer. Hear me out:
If someone were to run a simulated reality, they would (as we observe in known simulated reality) take steps to minimize computational resources. Where possible, if a computation doesn't effect future states, and they can feasibly exclude it, they won't perform the calculation. Therefore, instead of running through the full laws of physics for the whole simulated universe, they would only "pick a state" of some subsystem once it becomes coupled to rest of the universe and therefore "has to" perform the computations necessary to make it appear consistent -- exactly the quantum phenomenon you describe.
It further implies that we could find lower bounds on the computational power of the simulator running the universe if there is one: just find the minimum necessary to consistently generate our current observations. If we want to crash the universe, then we just have point our observation equipment in such a way that rapidly increases the necessary computations required to continue "fooling us". This would most likely include observing the initial state of as many highly-predictable deterministic subsystems as we can, waiting, and then "checking" a random one -- that forces the universe's computer to run through all of them, just to be sure it's consistent for the one that we check.
Of course, if we crash the universe, we all "die".
[/padded room]
Remember? Heck, if history is any judge they'll order automatic "thought-dumps"!
If you have a 401k or other tax-deferred or tax free program with your employer, that is an IRA that can be rolled over. That site was just to explain how it works, I'm sure there are a lot of others and you can probably get advance approval from the IRS.
Ah, okay, that's right, it's 72(t), not 42(t).
Here is a primer.
For me, it's more of a psychological thing: knowing that, at some point in time, I *could* just quit and plausibly live off investments is a quite a weight off my back, even if I don't exercise the option.
Okay, I'll share then:
A year ago I applied for a mortgage. I was, if I say so myself, an ideal borrower:
-No current debt, at all.
-~3 year history of paying every bill on time: cable, water, insurance, electricity, rent, etc.
-Steady employment for 18 months.
-No unpaid debts.
-No judgments.
-No kids.
-Verifiable liquid assets valued at ~1/3 of value of loan.
-Stable income from largest for profit employer in the area.
-Income > 2x median for the area.
-Applying for loan less than 2x yearly income.
-Monthly payment (which would be ALL debt payments) less than 20% of gross, even for high interest rate.
BUT! Here's the kicker: I'd only had a credit card for about four months. The result? Almost no one wanted to deal with me. Why? "No credit history." All those bills don't count, after all. What's worse, freecreditreport.com did list me as having scores from the credit bureaus in the 725-740 range, but from the lenders' perspectives, they only got "insufficient data". And no, there were no flaws in my credit report.
So, the only ones that did deal with me classified me as "subprime"(!) Best offer? 80% financing at 10% interest on a 3/1 adjustable. (Unlike *real* subprime people, I'm smart enough to know that if those are the terms on the mortgage, buying a home is not a good choice.)
And, for the final kicker: ALL of them told me I needed a credit history -- which having a credit card would count toward -- of at least 2 years in order not to get "insufficient data" when they pull my credit. I would have been able to establish that if I had done EXACTLY what I did the past three years, but had moved the expenses onto a credit card and paid the full balance.
Moral: Yes, you need a credit card.
Does that satisfy your curiosity?
***
The reason I didn't expand on that before was that the AC claimed that, based on his own individual experience, that suffices as evidence that you don't need a credit card. (It doesn't.) Since he couldn't see how his wife having a credit card established his existence in the financial system, in a proof of why you don't need a credit card to exist in the financial system, argumentation looked pretty pointless, and most people don't read ACs anyway.
LOL!!! This is priceless! I point out the absurdity of one poster's pedantic use of a term to prove a point, and then I get accused of using pedantry to prove a point! You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Remember, I'm playing the EXACT same world games as the person I was originally responding to, and, continuing that process of extending meanings to meaninglessness, I can just as easily say that "At the supermarket, you do have a debt, it just gets canceled if you decide not to pay, and they return the goods to the shelf."
Now, back to the world where you don't get modded up for making phony insights through word games...