Wow. It really takes guts to accuse Christianity of "stealing" crucifixion from the Romans. What next, "Native Americans stole smallpox from the White man"?
Yes, but at the same time, isn't it just as easy for a differently color-sighted person to have a web browser capable of doing color transformations that make it legible for them?
Jupiter... Jupiter... oh yeah, "and beyond the infinite".
That was the point in the movie's script where the writers said, "hey, I think we did a great job so far. Just scribble something down for the rest and we'll call it day."
Rearranging the memory registers of a Turing machine simulator =/= killing, so it's a moot point anyway:-P
It does however raise (beg?) the question of the morality of "killing" sufficiently conscious beings in a realistic virtual world. In my irrelevant opinion, it is morally permissible for a person to kill virtual beings in a simulation created in his world, but the beings within that world are still obligated to treat "users" from the overworld the same as anyone else since they cannot allow people to exploit such a loophole.
If her laptop can take a second drive, its cheaper to install a second drive and linux
lol yeah except that if you have any problems running it whatsoever, the help forums will deeply criticize you for taking the UNPRECEDENTED step of installing Ubuntu on a second hard drive.
I'm not so sure. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture may not be in charge of Gundam, but it has full regulatory authority over tentacle rapist breeding.
No, but (odd bit of trivia), they did have the census, which measured someone's total wealth, and eventually morphed into Zins in German, their word for (bank) interest.
I disagree. If it were simply a matter of drug users going rampant and imposing costs on others ("negative externalities") the government could just allow drug use as long as it's made, bought, and consumed inside designated "drug bars" that are highly regulated (i.e. test everyone before leaving, etc.) and taxed highly enough to contain and insure any spillover costs. Considering how much more expensive drugs become when illegal, and how users have to deal with uncertain supply and uncertain quality, you could put quite a high level of safety measures and taxes on such places before anyone would even consider buying the drugs on the black market rather than at such a bar.
Yet no country, democracy or dictatorship, liberal or conservative, allows even this simple compromise, despite the free money it would generate. Except for maybe the Netherlands for marijuana, and even there they keeps its legal status uncertain so as to deter people.
These policies would only make sense if extensive drug use, safe or otherwise, threatened the governments' hold on power.
No, no, you misunderstand. "Telephone/rumor" effect and all. They didn't give him a packet to return the iPod. The exact wording was that they're giving him "a receptacle in which to place the damaged goods".
No, I think he meant "Increased the probability that an article will unnecessarily be split across several pages":-P
Seriously though, if the complaint is about blogs, try looking at the mainstream media. A lot of the their stuff makes me feel stupider for having read it. Recently an msnbc, or Time article, I forget, referred to the 1997 Kasparov defeat as being a case where a computer "whupped" a human.
"Whupped"????
If I had tried that in 6th grade English, I would have been sent to a torture chamber. (figuratively, of course, although by this point it's "correct" to say "literally")
Also, they have annoying habits of using longer slang expressions where shorter, simpler ones will do: "divvy up" instead of "divide" and "cents on the dollar" instead of "percent", or even better, "%".
Doesn't this imply that the NSA, right now, has quantum computers under construction that are attempting to implement Shor's Algorithm for semiprimes greater than 15? And that they have the best (corruptible) cryptographers and physicists working for them?
As an experimental device, yes. But once it becomes accessible to the general population, I can guarantee you it will be banned for the same reason proveably safe drugs (and proveably safe methods of consuming unsafe drugs) are illegal.
When it is said that "literature is specific to a time and place" it is not meant that all 20th century literature is set in the 20th century, which is why I found so risible your expectation that the mere assertion of contemporary historical and fantastic fiction refuted that statement
No, my assertion of the mere existence of historical fiction wasn't my counterevidence; the assertion of historical fiction that attempts to retain the style of that period was my counterevidence. Which is why a Jane Austen work written today should be valued highly today, just as the Jane Austen work written in the early 19th century is valued today, despite its stylistic difference. In other words, imagine that Jane Austen published all her works but somehow forgot to submit Pride and Prejudice, and it was lost to history. Then, some relative found it today, gave it to a friend, who corrected all the spellings to match current convetions but otherwise left it unchanged. Should not that book be popular today? If not, current appreciation of Austen's other works must be tainted by a kind of "placebo" or "emporer's new clothes" bias. (Remember, Pride and Prejudice *is* popular today, in such a form.)
don't need to imply that CocoRosie is somehow in the accepted musical canon of great works (though given my personal inclinations I certainly wouldn't object if they were placed there sometime in the future) when they're simply a demonstration of the broader point that mundane context affects how we appreciate art irrespective of whatever objective merit that art may have.
Yes, and this broader point has been my contention all along, so I don't understand why you're using it as refutation of anything I've said.
-If you are told in advance that this work is "great art" and an elite community considers it among the best that taints yours perception to undeservedly think it's good. (This is a simple application of the uncontroversial placebo principle.) -When your family/club/social group has a known history of expelling people who don't appreciate a given work, that taints yours perception to undeservedly think it's good. -When you repeatedly consume a work, making it a sort of habit for you, part of your regular routine, that taints yours perception to undeservedly think it's good.
The question is, does the canon of great art *retain* its perceived value when these biases are removed? If not, that calls into question the validity of their current stats as great art.
Invoking confirmation bias is mighty gutsy of you when you want to overturn the null hypothesis on the basis of two entertaining but hardly rigorous "experiments." Extraordinary claims and so forth.
Not really. First of all, you and the elite community are oppositing the null hypothesis. Second, the "theory" claiming that the current canon is "great art" has never actually been scientifically tested so it had no experimental support to begin with. Third, as I stated above, our Bayesian rationality should favor the null hypothesis since current art appreciation is already understandable as a placebo effect, and the placebo effect has far more supporting evidence than any application of scientific theories to art. It should require extraordinary evidence to overturn that, NOT to overturn current claims about the merit of "great art".
I never like any of the music in the student center, because it's just in the way of my day - though in one notable instance I would later download, listen, realize it sounded familiar, and also realize that it wasn't that bad.
If I were to selectively apply my rigorous scientific standards only against evidence I don't like -- as you do -- I would point out that this experience of yours does not distinguish between "I like the music because the music is objectively of high quality" and "I like this music because of the effect of repetition on my perception of its quality."
And btw, what music history textbook considers "CocoRosie" to be artistically signficant?
Oh, and for your benefit I'll pretend that you didn't try to argue that contemporary works set in the Elizabethan era is equivalent in style, diction, structure, and sentiment to Shakespeare or Marlowe's depictions of their own time.
Good, because I did nothing of the sort.
I'll likewise pretend for your benefit that your perception of the world isn't completely poisoned by confirmation bias. Nah, even I can't deny something that obvious.
While others have already pointed out the common use of metonymy, I'd have to agree with you, and I'd support extending your criticism to other instances of it.
The purpose of language, at least when presenting facts, is to communicate as clearly as possible. When you start arbitrarily using different terms, with their own multiple meanings, to refer to the same thing, you're adding an unnecessary barrier to understanding. When someone not familiar with the "refer to an entire country's government by its capital city" convention reads what you wrote, they may very well interpret it to mean just the city. "Is Tokyo the same thing as the Japanese government?"
Educated people can be expected to have certain advance knowledge before reading what you wrote, but as people avoid using techniques that increase clarity, the set of people who understand your idea diminishes, exactly the opposite of what we all want to happen.
Of course, the purpose of language is not always to communicate facts, and geeks would do well to be aware of this. When someone uses the above city/national government convention, it could just be a way to signal, "hey, look how educated I am, I can talk about stuff you don't immediately understand."
Seen in that light, maybe their usage is justifiable;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. It really takes guts to accuse Christianity of "stealing" crucifixion from the Romans. What next, "Native Americans stole smallpox from the White man"?
Right, but the transformation itself should be pretty simple, right? Just a rotation/inversion/dilation of the color wheel.
And since Firefox has a really easy process for writing plugins...
Yes, but at the same time, isn't it just as easy for a differently color-sighted person to have a web browser capable of doing color transformations that make it legible for them?
UbuntuDupe:
Waco
Dallas
Probably Austin too
Oh, come on -- how many of you don't want to see me in person so you can beat the crap out of me?
Jupiter ... Jupiter ... oh yeah, "and beyond the infinite".
That was the point in the movie's script where the writers said, "hey, I think we did a great job so far. Just scribble something down for the rest and we'll call it day."
Rearranging the memory registers of a Turing machine simulator =/= killing, so it's a moot point anyway :-P
It does however raise (beg?) the question of the morality of "killing" sufficiently conscious beings in a realistic virtual world. In my irrelevant opinion, it is morally permissible for a person to kill virtual beings in a simulation created in his world, but the beings within that world are still obligated to treat "users" from the overworld the same as anyone else since they cannot allow people to exploit such a loophole.
Did I have too much coffee today?
I hate life
You're thinking too small:
euthan.asia
anast.asia
fant.asia
d-.asia/vu
It's a damn simple mind that can't make a word mean what he wants.
If her laptop can take a second drive, its cheaper to install a second drive and linux
;-)
lol yeah except that if you have any problems running it whatsoever, the help forums will deeply criticize you for taking the UNPRECEDENTED step of installing Ubuntu on a second hard drive.
Just trust me on this one
I'm not so sure. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture may not be in charge of Gundam, but it has full regulatory authority over tentacle rapist breeding.
That's one of the few times a /. post has made me literally laugh out loud. Thank you sir :-)
No, but (odd bit of trivia), they did have the census, which measured someone's total wealth, and eventually morphed into Zins in German, their word for (bank) interest.
No, it wasn't. It wasn't in a direct quote; it was the author of an article recounting how a computer finally "whupped" a human.
I disagree. If it were simply a matter of drug users going rampant and imposing costs on others ("negative externalities") the government could just allow drug use as long as it's made, bought, and consumed inside designated "drug bars" that are highly regulated (i.e. test everyone before leaving, etc.) and taxed highly enough to contain and insure any spillover costs. Considering how much more expensive drugs become when illegal, and how users have to deal with uncertain supply and uncertain quality, you could put quite a high level of safety measures and taxes on such places before anyone would even consider buying the drugs on the black market rather than at such a bar.
Yet no country, democracy or dictatorship, liberal or conservative, allows even this simple compromise, despite the free money it would generate. Except for maybe the Netherlands for marijuana, and even there they keeps its legal status uncertain so as to deter people.
These policies would only make sense if extensive drug use, safe or otherwise, threatened the governments' hold on power.
No, no, you misunderstand. "Telephone/rumor" effect and all. They didn't give him a packet to return the iPod. The exact wording was that they're giving him "a receptacle in which to place the damaged goods".
In other words, a hooker.
No, I think the dry-cleaners definitely held up their end of keeping the clothes dry LOL MIRITE.
(Poster to follow up with an explanation of why it's called "dry"-cleaning in 3...2...)
No, I think he meant "Increased the probability that an article will unnecessarily be split across several pages" :-P
Seriously though, if the complaint is about blogs, try looking at the mainstream media. A lot of the their stuff makes me feel stupider for having read it. Recently an msnbc, or Time article, I forget, referred to the 1997 Kasparov defeat as being a case where a computer "whupped" a human.
"Whupped"????
If I had tried that in 6th grade English, I would have been sent to a torture chamber. (figuratively, of course, although by this point it's "correct" to say "literally")
Also, they have annoying habits of using longer slang expressions where shorter, simpler ones will do: "divvy up" instead of "divide" and "cents on the dollar" instead of "percent", or even better, "%".
Doesn't this imply that the NSA, right now, has quantum computers under construction that are attempting to implement Shor's Algorithm for semiprimes greater than 15? And that they have the best (corruptible) cryptographers and physicists working for them?
As an experimental device, yes. But once it becomes accessible to the general population, I can guarantee you it will be banned for the same reason proveably safe drugs (and proveably safe methods of consuming unsafe drugs) are illegal.
"Governments ban drugs for the same reason religions ban most fun things: if you can get pleasure that way, you don't need them."
Discuss.
When it is said that "literature is specific to a time and place" it is not meant that all 20th century literature is set in the 20th century, which is why I found so risible your expectation that the mere assertion of contemporary historical and fantastic fiction refuted that statement
No, my assertion of the mere existence of historical fiction wasn't my counterevidence; the assertion of historical fiction that attempts to retain the style of that period was my counterevidence. Which is why a Jane Austen work written today should be valued highly today, just as the Jane Austen work written in the early 19th century is valued today, despite its stylistic difference. In other words, imagine that Jane Austen published all her works but somehow forgot to submit Pride and Prejudice, and it was lost to history. Then, some relative found it today, gave it to a friend, who corrected all the spellings to match current convetions but otherwise left it unchanged. Should not that book be popular today? If not, current appreciation of Austen's other works must be tainted by a kind of "placebo" or "emporer's new clothes" bias. (Remember, Pride and Prejudice *is* popular today, in such a form.)
don't need to imply that CocoRosie is somehow in the accepted musical canon of great works (though given my personal inclinations I certainly wouldn't object if they were placed there sometime in the future) when they're simply a demonstration of the broader point that mundane context affects how we appreciate art irrespective of whatever objective merit that art may have.
Yes, and this broader point has been my contention all along, so I don't understand why you're using it as refutation of anything I've said.
-If you are told in advance that this work is "great art" and an elite community considers it among the best that taints yours perception to undeservedly think it's good. (This is a simple application of the uncontroversial placebo principle.)
-When your family/club/social group has a known history of expelling people who don't appreciate a given work, that taints yours perception to undeservedly think it's good.
-When you repeatedly consume a work, making it a sort of habit for you, part of your regular routine, that taints yours perception to undeservedly think it's good.
The question is, does the canon of great art *retain* its perceived value when these biases are removed? If not, that calls into question the validity of their current stats as great art.
Invoking confirmation bias is mighty gutsy of you when you want to overturn the null hypothesis on the basis of two entertaining but hardly rigorous "experiments." Extraordinary claims and so forth.
Not really. First of all, you and the elite community are oppositing the null hypothesis. Second, the "theory" claiming that the current canon is "great art" has never actually been scientifically tested so it had no experimental support to begin with. Third, as I stated above, our Bayesian rationality should favor the null hypothesis since current art appreciation is already understandable as a placebo effect, and the placebo effect has far more supporting evidence than any application of scientific theories to art. It should require extraordinary evidence to overturn that, NOT to overturn current claims about the merit of "great art".
I never like any of the music in the student center, because it's just in the way of my day - though in one notable instance I would later download, listen, realize it sounded familiar, and also realize that it wasn't that bad.
If I were to selectively apply my rigorous scientific standards only against evidence I don't like -- as you do -- I would point out that this experience of yours does not distinguish between "I like the music because the music is objectively of high quality" and "I like this music because of the effect of repetition on my perception of its quality."
And btw, what music history textbook considers "CocoRosie" to be artistically signficant?
Oh, and for your benefit I'll pretend that you didn't try to argue that contemporary works set in the Elizabethan era is equivalent in style, diction, structure, and sentiment to Shakespeare or Marlowe's depictions of their own time.
Good, because I did nothing of the sort.
I'll likewise pretend for your benefit that your perception of the world isn't completely poisoned by confirmation bias. Nah, even I can't deny something that obvious.
The late 80s called. They want their Japanese business superiority fearmongering back.
While others have already pointed out the common use of metonymy, I'd have to agree with you, and I'd support extending your criticism to other instances of it.
;-)
The purpose of language, at least when presenting facts, is to communicate as clearly as possible. When you start arbitrarily using different terms, with their own multiple meanings, to refer to the same thing, you're adding an unnecessary barrier to understanding. When someone not familiar with the "refer to an entire country's government by its capital city" convention reads what you wrote, they may very well interpret it to mean just the city. "Is Tokyo the same thing as the Japanese government?"
Educated people can be expected to have certain advance knowledge before reading what you wrote, but as people avoid using techniques that increase clarity, the set of people who understand your idea diminishes, exactly the opposite of what we all want to happen.
Of course, the purpose of language is not always to communicate facts, and geeks would do well to be aware of this. When someone uses the above city/national government convention, it could just be a way to signal, "hey, look how educated I am, I can talk about stuff you don't immediately understand."
Seen in that light, maybe their usage is justifiable