And, if I made robots, capable of building copies of themselves, and of seeking out and absorbing energy from their surroundings, would that count as life? If yes, it doesn't sound that far off.
Hey, if you want to advance your own argument, fine. But please don't invent positions for other people to cover up their inability to articulate a coherent response. Your time would be better spent being impressed by ELIZA.
busy people in a subway station on their way somewhere failing to fall prostrate at the feet of Joshua Bell hardly establishes your point that Bell's aesthetic achievements are entirely social constructions. Because, you know, they're not exactly in circumstances conducive to aesthetic appreciation.
Hey, as far as rationalizations for discomforting evidence go, this is alright. But it is, ultimately, a rationalization.
If the music is supposed to be the best humanity has produced, and the performer one of the best in the world, and the violin highly valuable, and all of this is supposed to be objectively recognizable and not an artifact of some elitist group's dictates, people would gladly stop at great personal cost because they have found something truly precious in a place where it is underappreciated. A "diamond in the rough" so to speak. In reality, despite finding something EXTREMELY VALUABLE (!) in the person of a street musician, they won't even risk being a *few minutes late to work* to view it!
It's only when someone explains to them that truly beautiful clothes are invisible, er, I mean, when they are taught what music is the best in advance, that they are at all impressed.
How do you think this would compare to, say, leaving diamonds on the subway?
though of course given the sample size, response bias, lack of any controls, etc. etc.,
Did you not read the link? You can certainly argue that the safeguards were imperfect -- indeed, that's your "out" to avoid having to accept the implications of the experiment -- but you can't argue there were none. And the sample size was enormous, and the response was only biased when it doesn't do what your precious theories think it will.
ll art is specific to a time and place, and an author of Austen's talent living today would not write on the same subjects or in the same style
Yeah, good point, because no one writes novels about different historical periods. Oh wait, they do.
But you're right, no one tries to write in a different style to evoke the character of a different era or culture. Oh wait, they do.
But I guess you're right that people don't actually read Austen's work, except as education-related study of literature. Oh wait, they do.
As I figured. Most "age discrimination" (taking age as a negative) is really just a case where the employer has some obscenely huge financial disincentive to keep the employee on, and the employee was aware the whole time the employer would eventually be in this position. But then -- why negotiate a benefit that gives your employer such a perverse incentive structure to begin with?
Another example is the employees who get "fired for being old" but then you find out their pension benefits accrue in such away that on one day, the current actuarial value of the benefits shoots up by hundreds of thousands of dollars because of a step-up. Since almost no one's work is worth that much *per day*, then obviously it's not hatred of the old, but an objective financial penalty. But since some people have a hard time compartmentalizing the "pension benefit" of a job, they don't understand this.
This is not, and never has been, about Ubuntu. It's about crappy design and why/.ers have no problem seeing it in other contexts, but completely overlook it when it comes to their favored OS that hasn't caught on.
As a geek, I like to be in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever. However, I don't like when it gets used against good guys, like Google.
Heh, if an oil company *did* dig this deep into the San Andreas Fault, I'm *sure* they would be applauded for the scientific discovery they've facilitated...
You do know you can install GRUB on a partition, not just the master boot record, right?
I know that now, and I figured as much at the time. However, it said (in case you didn't get the 50 other memos) that installing Grub on the MBR is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Now, to normal people, that means, "The safest thing is to do this option, unless you know the system very well." It should not be HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, but it was.
It is true, that I was irresponsible for following the install instructions. I have never denied that, and you would be absolutely correct for saying so. NO ONE should trust Linux install instructions, period.
Anyway, who installs anything into the MBR without an alternative boot method?
I did have alternate boot methods, namely, the ones the Ubuntu site said to have ready. What I did not have, was the "secret" alternate boot methods I was supposed to know to also download in contravention of the "required download" list.
You got what you deserve, sorry, but I bet you won't make that stupid mistake again. We all have to learn somehow, and you're not always going to get your hand held along the way.
Again, I have always agreed to this: see the original thread! "But it's my fault, really. I never should have believed all that crap about..." Guess what? That's not sarcasm.
Just like when I call you stupid when you make elementary errors -- that's dead serious.
However the problem comes down in that you end up becoming too efficient... when you have a sale and you are retail giant you want the sale to bring in customers to buy the higher GM products... not the sale items! That loses you money when customers can actually FIND the stuff that is CHEAP
Exactly, it's just like how gas stations won't let you pay at the pump, they make you go inside so they can get a chance to sell you something.
It almost did, too, until some "bouncy" female runner hurled an Olympic device at a giant TV screen with some talking authoritarian-looking guy on it while being chased by police, in an attempt to promote Macintosh products.
(And anyone who digitally replaces that authoritarian guy with someone they dislike, in both video and audio, instantly becomes a genius, like the guy who did Hillary.)
Please learn to use terms properly. If you want to claim that, you should be able to fill out this form without further thought:
1) What you believed I was trying to prove.
2) What you think my proof of 1) was.
3) Where in 2) I invoked 1) as evidence.
***
Your other claim, separate from the question-begging, is that the people failing to recognize the art's quality are not the same ones claiming its quality, in yours there are. I would say that there's less correlation, but the point still holds.
When someone says that Joshua Bell is among the world's best violinists, AND that this violin is one of the best in the world, AND these pieces are the best humanity has produced, the implicit claim is "and you don't have to be socially pressured into recognizing that". These tests removed the social pressure to recognize it as good, and with it, the appreciation vanished.
When a publisher, capable of recognizing which manuscripts will sell, believes that Jane Austen's work won't sell, he is saying that the method he uses to determine what people will like, fails Jane Austen's work. But people, mainly women, still buy Jane Austen's work in droves. That implies that the people buying it are holding it to a different standard (buying it based on different criteria) simply because their views have been tainted by knowing that it's "great literature". Take away the advance knowledge of this, and "what? Who would read this crap?"
I'd love to move on, but let's not forget, I was pretty savagely ridiculed for what I said about Ubuntu's design. Yet pretty much every day someone gets modded to five for making THE EXACT SAME CRITICISM in a different context.
Look at it from my perspective: imagine the world adhering to a standard that it ignores in precisely those cases where you'd negatively be affected. Imaging the world being rational, except enough to screw you over.
True, they're not really double blind, but as I said to the other posters, that makes their results stronger. You would expect that less blindness would make it *more* likely to get the public to appreciate the art; in reality, making test only single blind, by itself, suffices to destroy their appreciation for it.
The larget point is that there are other areas where an elite group claims that something is better, but that rigorous scientific testing demonstrates is only better *if you are told in advance is better*, which is the same as not being better. (placebo or "emporer's new clothes" effect)
If I hand you a bottle of an unknown chemical and say "go on, drink it, I think it's safe." and somehow says to you "He's a good guy, trust him." and someone else says "He's a liar, don't trust him." you're stuck with what might seem (in Fair and Balanced land) like an even choice. But, you see, the truth is that you have many choices of things to drink, and the cost of not drinking is miniscule, while the cost of drinking could be fatal. So I'm betting you won't drink it. Even though it looks like symmetry.
Great point, a really great point.
Another example is in installing a bootloader. For example, let's say you've installed a new OS to a separate hard drive. Then you have the option to overwrite your MBR with Grub. Now, you had originally planned to load this OS simply by hitting F5 at startup and telling your computer to boot from that hard drive. That way, any failure of the new OS -- let's call it Ubuntu -- is contained to that hard drive. But then, if you do install Grub, and it works, it will be much easier to load Ubuntu when you want to use it. However, if you install Grub, and it has error 25 at stage 1.5, you're pretty much screwed. You can't get into any OS or use the internet or burn CDs on that computer. So it just wouldn't make sense to take such a huge risk, just for a teensy tiny bit of ease on startup.
And as the designers of this installation process, you're familiar with this.
Which is why you'd have to be pretty stupid to HIGHLY RECOMMEND that new users install Grub.
It's a good thing Ubuntu programmers understand basic design principles. Oh wait, they don't.
We are not testing performance of a human, which can change, but performance of a electronic component that accourding to these sellers
Um... they were testing the performace of an electronic component by asking a human to "perform" in being able to recognize it, just like in my examples, they were testing the "performace" of art by asking humans to "peform" in being able to recognize it. If they're testing human performance in my examples, they're testing human performance in yours as well.
-elite community claims a device produces higher quality audio -people were presented with audio, but without knowing which devices were used it its production -they could not reliably identify the device claimed to produce higher quality audio -they had previously claimed to recognize it as higher quality audio
What I presented:
-elite community claims that given instances of art are of the highest quality humanity has produced -people were presented with the art, not knowing in advance that it had previously been so distinguished -they did not recognize it as being any good -in other contexts, people voluntarily go out of their way and part with their own money to access that art
You are correct that this would at best constitute a single-blind test, but if anything that amplifies the significance. It would be like if a placebo did much better than the real drug.
There was already a South Park episode about this: Season 6, "Free Hat". So... maybe the thief just stole it keep Spielberg from digitally removing the politically incorrect stuff?:-P
So the informational content of your original post was what? The TC was saying why the laws are morally wrong. Your response was... Germany will enforce them anyway? So? How is that responsive?
You're correct: "We don't save." "Speichern" is the verb German computer games use when you want to "save the game."
(OT: Many translations "overdo" what is contained in the original statement. "L'etat, c'est moi" is usually translated as "I am the state", but it should really be "The state, it's me." That would carry over Louis XIV's, and the French's acceptance of, sentence fragments and the use of the accusative with "to be". Of course, he didn't actually say that, or believe it, but whatever.)
Would it be a case of Godwin's law to ask Daimanta if he agrees with Germany's use of this principle in certain other instances? I mean... he said it applies to "everything else."
You are living in a country. You are a (permanent/temporary) guest. You have to obey by the laws of the country. If you want to keep existing as a Jew you could leave the country and be on your way.
That said however I'm sure they could calculate how many stars aren't visible due to light pollution using some math/science type thing but perhaps again it's because by making a big deal out of it it's easier to bring people's attention to the issue.
In the 30 seconds that I used the program Starry Night, I remember that it already had a feature where you could show what the night sky looks like with different levels of light pollution, which I'm guessing is a simple mathematical calculation, and you could feed it as input data that we already have from satellites.
Slashdot Mirror
Which one does it violate?
And, if I made robots, capable of building copies of themselves, and of seeking out and absorbing energy from their surroundings, would that count as life? If yes, it doesn't sound that far off.
No, he's pointing out that ...
Hey, if you want to advance your own argument, fine. But please don't invent positions for other people to cover up their inability to articulate a coherent response. Your time would be better spent being impressed by ELIZA.
busy people in a subway station on their way somewhere failing to fall prostrate at the feet of Joshua Bell hardly establishes your point that Bell's aesthetic achievements are entirely social constructions. Because, you know, they're not exactly in circumstances conducive to aesthetic appreciation.
Hey, as far as rationalizations for discomforting evidence go, this is alright. But it is, ultimately, a rationalization.
If the music is supposed to be the best humanity has produced, and the performer one of the best in the world, and the violin highly valuable, and all of this is supposed to be objectively recognizable and not an artifact of some elitist group's dictates, people would gladly stop at great personal cost because they have found something truly precious in a place where it is underappreciated. A "diamond in the rough" so to speak. In reality, despite finding something EXTREMELY VALUABLE (!) in the person of a street musician, they won't even risk being a *few minutes late to work* to view it!
It's only when someone explains to them that truly beautiful clothes are invisible, er, I mean, when they are taught what music is the best in advance, that they are at all impressed.
How do you think this would compare to, say, leaving diamonds on the subway?
though of course given the sample size, response bias, lack of any controls, etc. etc.,
Did you not read the link? You can certainly argue that the safeguards were imperfect -- indeed, that's your "out" to avoid having to accept the implications of the experiment -- but you can't argue there were none. And the sample size was enormous, and the response was only biased when it doesn't do what your precious theories think it will.
ll art is specific to a time and place, and an author of Austen's talent living today would not write on the same subjects or in the same style
Yeah, good point, because no one writes novels about different historical periods. Oh wait, they do.
But you're right, no one tries to write in a different style to evoke the character of a different era or culture. Oh wait, they do.
But I guess you're right that people don't actually read Austen's work, except as education-related study of literature. Oh wait, they do.
Speaking of which...
Do you think crows debate if humans are intelligent?
As I figured. Most "age discrimination" (taking age as a negative) is really just a case where the employer has some obscenely huge financial disincentive to keep the employee on, and the employee was aware the whole time the employer would eventually be in this position. But then -- why negotiate a benefit that gives your employer such a perverse incentive structure to begin with?
Another example is the employees who get "fired for being old" but then you find out their pension benefits accrue in such away that on one day, the current actuarial value of the benefits shoots up by hundreds of thousands of dollars because of a step-up. Since almost no one's work is worth that much *per day*, then obviously it's not hatred of the old, but an objective financial penalty. But since some people have a hard time compartmentalizing the "pension benefit" of a job, they don't understand this.
This is not, and never has been, about Ubuntu. It's about crappy design and why /.ers have no problem seeing it in other contexts, but completely overlook it when it comes to their favored OS that hasn't caught on.
As a geek, I like to be in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever. However, I don't like when it gets used against good guys, like Google.
Hey, at least I'm honest about my favoritism.
You get that from your pastor? Or your little pocket Bible or something?
Heh, if an oil company *did* dig this deep into the San Andreas Fault, I'm *sure* they would be applauded for the scientific discovery they've facilitated...
You do know you can install GRUB on a partition, not just the master boot record, right?
..." Guess what? That's not sarcasm.
I know that now, and I figured as much at the time. However, it said (in case you didn't get the 50 other memos) that installing Grub on the MBR is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Now, to normal people, that means, "The safest thing is to do this option, unless you know the system very well." It should not be HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, but it was.
It is true, that I was irresponsible for following the install instructions. I have never denied that, and you would be absolutely correct for saying so. NO ONE should trust Linux install instructions, period.
Anyway, who installs anything into the MBR without an alternative boot method?
I did have alternate boot methods, namely, the ones the Ubuntu site said to have ready. What I did not have, was the "secret" alternate boot methods I was supposed to know to also download in contravention of the "required download" list.
You got what you deserve, sorry, but I bet you won't make that stupid mistake again. We all have to learn somehow, and you're not always going to get your hand held along the way.
Again, I have always agreed to this: see the original thread! "But it's my fault, really. I never should have believed all that crap about
Just like when I call you stupid when you make elementary errors -- that's dead serious.
However the problem comes down in that you end up becoming too efficient... when you have a sale and you are retail giant you want the sale to bring in customers to buy the higher GM products... not the sale items! That loses you money when customers can actually FIND the stuff that is CHEAP
Exactly, it's just like how gas stations won't let you pay at the pump, they make you go inside so they can get a chance to sell you something.
Wait, I'm going to re-think that one...
And 1984 was supposed to happen in 1984.
It almost did, too, until some "bouncy" female runner hurled an Olympic device at a giant TV screen with some talking authoritarian-looking guy on it while being chased by police, in an attempt to promote Macintosh products.
(And anyone who digitally replaces that authoritarian guy with someone they dislike, in both video and audio, instantly becomes a genius, like the guy who did Hillary.)
Your "point" begs the question.
Please learn to use terms properly. If you want to claim that, you should be able to fill out this form without further thought:
1) What you believed I was trying to prove.
2) What you think my proof of 1) was.
3) Where in 2) I invoked 1) as evidence.
***
Your other claim, separate from the question-begging, is that the people failing to recognize the art's quality are not the same ones claiming its quality, in yours there are. I would say that there's less correlation, but the point still holds.
When someone says that Joshua Bell is among the world's best violinists, AND that this violin is one of the best in the world, AND these pieces are the best humanity has produced, the implicit claim is "and you don't have to be socially pressured into recognizing that". These tests removed the social pressure to recognize it as good, and with it, the appreciation vanished.
When a publisher, capable of recognizing which manuscripts will sell, believes that Jane Austen's work won't sell, he is saying that the method he uses to determine what people will like, fails Jane Austen's work. But people, mainly women, still buy Jane Austen's work in droves. That implies that the people buying it are holding it to a different standard (buying it based on different criteria) simply because their views have been tainted by knowing that it's "great literature". Take away the advance knowledge of this, and "what? Who would read this crap?"
I'd love to move on, but let's not forget, I was pretty savagely ridiculed for what I said about Ubuntu's design. Yet pretty much every day someone gets modded to five for making THE EXACT SAME CRITICISM in a different context.
Look at it from my perspective: imagine the world adhering to a standard that it ignores in precisely those cases where you'd negatively be affected. Imaging the world being rational, except enough to screw you over.
True, they're not really double blind, but as I said to the other posters, that makes their results stronger. You would expect that less blindness would make it *more* likely to get the public to appreciate the art; in reality, making test only single blind, by itself, suffices to destroy their appreciation for it.
The larget point is that there are other areas where an elite group claims that something is better, but that rigorous scientific testing demonstrates is only better *if you are told in advance is better*, which is the same as not being better. (placebo or "emporer's new clothes" effect)
If I hand you a bottle of an unknown chemical and say "go on, drink it, I think it's safe." and somehow says to you "He's a good guy, trust him." and someone else says "He's a liar, don't trust him." you're stuck with what might seem (in Fair and Balanced land) like an even choice. But, you see, the truth is that you have many choices of things to drink, and the cost of not drinking is miniscule, while the cost of drinking could be fatal. So I'm betting you won't drink it. Even though it looks like symmetry.
Great point, a really great point.
Another example is in installing a bootloader. For example, let's say you've installed a new OS to a separate hard drive. Then you have the option to overwrite your MBR with Grub. Now, you had originally planned to load this OS simply by hitting F5 at startup and telling your computer to boot from that hard drive. That way, any failure of the new OS -- let's call it Ubuntu -- is contained to that hard drive. But then, if you do install Grub, and it works, it will be much easier to load Ubuntu when you want to use it. However, if you install Grub, and it has error 25 at stage 1.5, you're pretty much screwed. You can't get into any OS or use the internet or burn CDs on that computer. So it just wouldn't make sense to take such a huge risk, just for a teensy tiny bit of ease on startup.
And as the designers of this installation process, you're familiar with this.
Which is why you'd have to be pretty stupid to HIGHLY RECOMMEND that new users install Grub.
It's a good thing Ubuntu programmers understand basic design principles. Oh wait, they don't.
We are not testing performance of a human, which can change, but performance of a electronic component that accourding to these sellers
... they were testing the performace of an electronic component by asking a human to "perform" in being able to recognize it, just like in my examples, they were testing the "performace" of art by asking humans to "peform" in being able to recognize it. If they're testing human performance in my examples, they're testing human performance in yours as well.
Um
"Dur, what forest? I just see a bunch of trees!"
I know, I know, IHBT.
What you presented:
-elite community claims a device produces higher quality audio
-people were presented with audio, but without knowing which devices were used it its production
-they could not reliably identify the device claimed to produce higher quality audio
-they had previously claimed to recognize it as higher quality audio
What I presented:
-elite community claims that given instances of art are of the highest quality humanity has produced
-people were presented with the art, not knowing in advance that it had previously been so distinguished
-they did not recognize it as being any good
-in other contexts, people voluntarily go out of their way and part with their own money to access that art
You are correct that this would at best constitute a single-blind test, but if anything that amplifies the significance. It would be like if a placebo did much better than the real drug.
How about double blind tests of in-person musical performance? Oh wait, did that.
How about double blind tests of literature? Oh wait, did that too.
How about double blind tests of painting and sculpture?
By watching these, it will have the same effect on me as getting UC Berkeley degree!
(Except for the job offers and stuff.)
There was already a South Park episode about this: Season 6, "Free Hat". So ... maybe the thief just stole it keep Spielberg from digitally removing the politically incorrect stuff? :-P
So the informational content of your original post was what? The TC was saying why the laws are morally wrong. Your response was ... Germany will enforce them anyway? So? How is that responsive?
You're correct: "We don't save." "Speichern" is the verb German computer games use when you want to "save the game."
(OT: Many translations "overdo" what is contained in the original statement. "L'etat, c'est moi" is usually translated as "I am the state", but it should really be "The state, it's me." That would carry over Louis XIV's, and the French's acceptance of, sentence fragments and the use of the accusative with "to be". Of course, he didn't actually say that, or believe it, but whatever.)
Would it be a case of Godwin's law to ask Daimanta if he agrees with Germany's use of this principle in certain other instances? I mean ... he said it applies to "everything else."
You are living in a country. You are a (permanent/temporary) guest. You have to obey by the laws of the country. If you want to keep existing as a Jew you could leave the country and be on your way.
-Any ground astronomy actually discovering cutting-edge stuff, is already located far from cities.
-New observatories will be put on planes. (like NASA's SOFIA project) [1]
So, all it really means is amateur astronomers can't collect the best data. Which is bad, I agree, but
-in terms of scientific progress, is about as bad as not putting the latest scientific journal publications in high schools
-affects my life less than "noise pollution".
Yeah, mod me down, but someone had to say it.
[1] Before anyone else can do it: "Enough is enough! I have *had it* with these m/f'ing observatories having to go on m/f planes!"
That said however I'm sure they could calculate how many stars aren't visible due to light pollution using some math/science type thing but perhaps again it's because by making a big deal out of it it's easier to bring people's attention to the issue.
In the 30 seconds that I used the program Starry Night, I remember that it already had a feature where you could show what the night sky looks like with different levels of light pollution, which I'm guessing is a simple mathematical calculation, and you could feed it as input data that we already have from satellites.
So yeah, I don't see the point of the project.