Isn't satire and other kinds of humor covered under the first amendment? and Wow how are you not supposed to make fun of $RELIGION...it's such an easy target...all that stuff about $IMPLAUSIBLE_CLAIM and $HUMAN_ORIGIN_STORY happening $LARGE_NUMBER of years ago...it's a humorist's dream.
You know, that made me think about another way the results are biased:
Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer? Person 1: What? Are you insane? No way! Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer? Person 2: Um... no? Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer? Person 3: Sure, how much are you paying? Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer? Person 4: Hey, whatever. Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer? Person 5: OOOOH! Sounds like fun! Scientist: Alright, the three of you come with me.
Right, but they didn't simulate a phishing attack in the experiment. Rather, the customer initiated the visit. To simulate a phishing attack, they should have had the users check their email, rather than initiate a visit to their bank's website.
Re:Are we really making it better for us, or worse
on
Finding New Code
·
· Score: 1
So wait, you're concerned about possible copyright violation due to internet distribution, and want to make sure that if the work is distributed on the internet, it has the appropriate precautions to make sure people don't violate the license?... because that's exactly why the record industry supports DRM.
It's not that larger incentives can be awarded (I never said anything like that at all); it's that people can be freed up from other tasks entirely; i.e., fewer farmers, etc. are necessary to support the world, and can now be devoted toward the things on the list, so you now have more eyeballs looking at any one problem. And it wasn't just pure math problems that are on the list either.
It seems like all you have to offer is your opinion that, "aha!!!! I found something whose discovery time can't be shortened at all!" Hey -- good for you.
"Trivial" might have been an exaggeration, but the point remains: if economic resources are nearly superabundant, you can devote a lot more people to tasks like proving mathematical theorems, and more importantly, you will have better mathematical training. It's true that you don't really need lots of economic resources* to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, as anyone can in theory, arrive at the answer. It just helps immensely.
*I don't want to say "money", because what's important is what the money lays a claim to. You seem to be equating money with wealth, which is emphatically not the case. Wealth is what people value; money is an intermediate good in the exchange of wealth. You can easily create more money, but you can not easily create the value of the things it lays claim to. Having the right political/economic system is what I believe would have the largest long term wealth on the ability to provide wealth -- the things people value.
Very funny, but I actually consider that the most important question of all, because if you know the answer to that, you can generate the wealth necessary to trivially solve all of the others. Look at all the nations of the world and observe what a huge difference the choice of government makes!
It's also the hardest because it's extremely difficult to perform a scientific experiment to test it. There are millions of variables to control, and uncontrollable, and you can't grab X governments at random and make them do something, dividing them neatly into control and test groups. (That's why it's hard for people to come to agreement about the matter.)
Could MMORPG's and realistic computer models of human economic behavior change this? Maybe.
Also, it should give the current "closest" solutions to the problems, i.e., "Person A found that you can solve B as long as you know how to do a C on D."
Btw, I never knew there was a "Union of International Associations". Talk about bureaucracy! My friends and I used to joke about an imaginary, incompetent organication called the "Federal International Comission" (FIC), but man, did we miss the gold mine!
You singled out a peon who works at a big company, even if he is the supervisor. He doesn't make policy, he only enforces it. Blame the company, not a single person.
Oh, really? So, there's someone higher to appeal to, with more authority that has the responsibility for these matters?
I agree. And that's precisely why the this manager should not have said: "I am the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than me that you will speak with."
Because that might give the wrong impression that's actually the last person to go to regarding the matter.
Statistical significance applies only to the data set you're analyzing, not a probable conclusion.
So what? You tested one earth. Your predictions (made by an independent third party who was only given your model) came true how many times? Where else would such limited information be in any way significant?
To save you time: You're trying to equate all scientific consensuses, regardless of how much data is available to back up each one. Then you're using that to lecture the CEI about how science works, when "how science works" has significant limitations in its applicability to studying something you only have one of. "You have to test your theories!" "Have you tested your theory on earth?" "Well..."
Yes, scientists are supposed to work for free, and you should never ask any scientist if he would document what he considers the flaws of a prevailing theory.
At least, that's the message I'm getting from the story.
From what I've read they don't expect to make a profit on the xbox until '08 (although maybe this past holiday season changed that and I missed it). And even when they do turn a profit, they've lost so many billions on the project that it will take MANY years of squeezing a profit to make it break even over the long term.
Exactly. And remember, that's just for them to make an *accounting* profit. It's still basically a loss until they can make *enough* of a profit to beat the return on a (essentially zero-risk) money market account with deposits made at the same time as their investments in the Xbox line.
This might be the wrong name, but he sounds like a guy I talked about with my (occasionally gullible...) mom about a month ago.
"Oh, [UbuntuDupe], did you hear the story about this genius they have at Microsoft and all this brilliant ideas?"
"Like what?"
"Well, he was the mastermind behind the Xbox!"
"Um... the Xbox has been a loss for five years now. That doesn't sound like it's much of a success for MS yet."
"But... it's going to pay off eventually."
"I'm sure. Anything else?"
"Well, um, they say he was also the head of the Zune project."
"...? The Zune is a basically a butt of everyone's jokes now and has sold very poorly."
"Well, they also said he has a new brilliant idea for an upcoming product."
"But it hasn't been released yet?"
"No..."
***
Btw, for those of your unfamiliar with American business, leaving "for personal reasons" is code for "We're dumping you, you miserable failure, but we'll sugarcoat it to salvage your dignity."
Interesting stuff. I think as long as you (within reason) can learn to ignore what others think, it can be individually optimal for you to deviate. And that's what I've done. Any difference between what people *think* they need to live on, and what you think you need to live on, is then pure gravy. I bury the difference in index funds, much of it foreign.
The problem is, at what point is it no longer your problem to worry about? What I mean is: if, against all rational thought and evidence, people STILL want to blow all their money on trivialities, are we really obligated to feel sorry for them? If they really want to work several times as much as they need to (or save several times less than they'd like), just to enjoy that kind of lifestyle, it gets to be condescending to claim they are somehow "victims". They are, fundamentally, "victims" of their own free choice. We may not agree or understand, but at some point, you have to respect that decision.
There's another point I want to address: it looks like your treatment of the Great Depression was more integral to your position than I previously thought, so I want to explain what I consider its deficiencies. Specifically, there is no "aggregate demand" that needs to be created. If someone produces something, and people can't afford it, market forces make him drop his prices and not make so much in the future. There were numerous recessions simliar to 1929 (including in 1920) that did not blow up into a full scale depression for the simple reason that no one was pressured to fix prices in such a way that kept the economy from adjusting like in the above. Are you familiar with Say's Law ("supply creates its own demand")? If so, is there a specific reason you consider it invalid, or that some prerequisite is not met?
Pharmacists are the ones that actually have to learn about the drugs and try to catch as many dangerous interactions the doctors may or may not know about as they can.
And I would consider it a "modern anachronism" that this wasn't computerized, everywhere, a long, long time ago. I shouldn't have to rely solely on a human "remembering" a dangerous combo. That's what databases are for.
Why are doctors so resistant to modernization, i.e., accepting that they aren't gods?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert on this matter but:
1) Wasn't some version of Unreal usable on the GameCube?
2) Does Unreal force you to use the level of detail that's currently found on the Xbox 360 and PS3?
Isn't satire and other kinds of humor covered under the first amendment? and Wow how are you not supposed to make fun of $RELIGION ...it's such an easy target...all that stuff about $IMPLAUSIBLE_CLAIM and $HUMAN_ORIGIN_STORY happening $LARGE_NUMBER of years ago...it's a humorist's dream.
You know, that made me think about another way the results are biased:
... no?
Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer?
Person 1: What? Are you insane? No way!
Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer?
Person 2: Um
Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer?
Person 3: Sure, how much are you paying?
Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer?
Person 4: Hey, whatever.
Scientist: Hi, I'm a stranger, will you participate in an experiment where you enter your account information on my computer?
Person 5: OOOOH! Sounds like fun!
Scientist: Alright, the three of you come with me.
Right, but they didn't simulate a phishing attack in the experiment. Rather, the customer initiated the visit. To simulate a phishing attack, they should have had the users check their email, rather than initiate a visit to their bank's website.
So wait, you're concerned about possible copyright violation due to internet distribution, and want to make sure that if the work is distributed on the internet, it has the appropriate precautions to make sure people don't violate the license? ... because that's exactly why the record industry supports DRM.
It's not that larger incentives can be awarded (I never said anything like that at all); it's that people can be freed up from other tasks entirely; i.e., fewer farmers, etc. are necessary to support the world, and can now be devoted toward the things on the list, so you now have more eyeballs looking at any one problem. And it wasn't just pure math problems that are on the list either.
It seems like all you have to offer is your opinion that, "aha!!!! I found something whose discovery time can't be shortened at all!" Hey -- good for you.
"Trivial" might have been an exaggeration, but the point remains: if economic resources are nearly superabundant, you can devote a lot more people to tasks like proving mathematical theorems, and more importantly, you will have better mathematical training. It's true that you don't really need lots of economic resources* to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, as anyone can in theory, arrive at the answer. It just helps immensely.
*I don't want to say "money", because what's important is what the money lays a claim to. You seem to be equating money with wealth, which is emphatically not the case. Wealth is what people value; money is an intermediate good in the exchange of wealth. You can easily create more money, but you can not easily create the value of the things it lays claim to. Having the right political/economic system is what I believe would have the largest long term wealth on the ability to provide wealth -- the things people value.
Very funny, but I actually consider that the most important question of all, because if you know the answer to that, you can generate the wealth necessary to trivially solve all of the others. Look at all the nations of the world and observe what a huge difference the choice of government makes!
It's also the hardest because it's extremely difficult to perform a scientific experiment to test it. There are millions of variables to control, and uncontrollable, and you can't grab X governments at random and make them do something, dividing them neatly into control and test groups. (That's why it's hard for people to come to agreement about the matter.)
Could MMORPG's and realistic computer models of human economic behavior change this? Maybe.
Also, it should give the current "closest" solutions to the problems, i.e., "Person A found that you can solve B as long as you know how to do a C on D."
Btw, I never knew there was a "Union of International Associations". Talk about bureaucracy! My friends and I used to joke about an imaginary, incompetent organication called the "Federal International Comission" (FIC), but man, did we miss the gold mine!
Off topic: Love your name. That was a Star Trek card I really like some 10+ years ago :-)
But what if they guy they're giving death threats to is wealthy? What if he has a lot of "power"? I guess the death threats are okay then.
I mean, that's basically how you think it should work, right?
You singled out a peon who works at a big company, even if he is the supervisor. He doesn't make policy, he only enforces it. Blame the company, not a single person.
Oh, really? So, there's someone higher to appeal to, with more authority that has the responsibility for these matters?
I agree. And that's precisely why the this manager should not have said: "I am the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than me that you will speak with."
Because that might give the wrong impression that's actually the last person to go to regarding the matter.
Some schools already use DDR in P.E.
You want to see bitterness? Watch me when an Ubuntu install fails.
Statistical significance applies only to the data set you're analyzing, not a probable conclusion.
..."
So what? You tested one earth. Your predictions (made by an independent third party who was only given your model) came true how many times? Where else would such limited information be in any way significant?
To save you time: You're trying to equate all scientific consensuses, regardless of how much data is available to back up each one. Then you're using that to lecture the CEI about how science works, when "how science works" has significant limitations in its applicability to studying something you only have one of. "You have to test your theories!" "Have you tested your theory on earth?" "Well
And "your" statistics class? What?
The scientific method relies upon hypothesis and testing,
How many earths have climatological theories been tested on? What's the statistical significance?
Yes, scientists are supposed to work for free, and you should never ask any scientist if he would document what he considers the flaws of a prevailing theory.
At least, that's the message I'm getting from the story.
From what I've read they don't expect to make a profit on the xbox until '08 (although maybe this past holiday season changed that and I missed it). And even when they do turn a profit, they've lost so many billions on the project that it will take MANY years of squeezing a profit to make it break even over the long term.
Exactly. And remember, that's just for them to make an *accounting* profit. It's still basically a loss until they can make *enough* of a profit to beat the return on a (essentially zero-risk) money market account with deposits made at the same time as their investments in the Xbox line.
Wait, wait, I think I can see it:
... until years down the road ...
... with a bumper sticker ...
I see it lacking the features of the iPhone
I see an Apple fan
"ZunePhone '16 = iPhone '07"
This might be the wrong name, but he sounds like a guy I talked about with my (occasionally gullible ...) mom about a month ago.
... the Xbox has been a loss for five years now. That doesn't sound like it's much of a success for MS yet."
... it's going to pay off eventually."
"Oh, [UbuntuDupe], did you hear the story about this genius they have at Microsoft and all this brilliant ideas?"
"Like what?"
"Well, he was the mastermind behind the Xbox!"
"Um
"But
"I'm sure. Anything else?"
"Well, um, they say he was also the head of the Zune project."
"...? The Zune is a basically a butt of everyone's jokes now and has sold very poorly."
"Well, they also said he has a new brilliant idea for an upcoming product."
"But it hasn't been released yet?"
"No..."
***
Btw, for those of your unfamiliar with American business, leaving "for personal reasons" is code for "We're dumping you, you miserable failure, but we'll sugarcoat it to salvage your dignity."
Well, they could patent it, and then we won't have to smell that ****.
Interesting stuff. I think as long as you (within reason) can learn to ignore what others think, it can be individually optimal for you to deviate. And that's what I've done. Any difference between what people *think* they need to live on, and what you think you need to live on, is then pure gravy. I bury the difference in index funds, much of it foreign.
The problem is, at what point is it no longer your problem to worry about? What I mean is: if, against all rational thought and evidence, people STILL want to blow all their money on trivialities, are we really obligated to feel sorry for them? If they really want to work several times as much as they need to (or save several times less than they'd like), just to enjoy that kind of lifestyle, it gets to be condescending to claim they are somehow "victims". They are, fundamentally, "victims" of their own free choice. We may not agree or understand, but at some point, you have to respect that decision.
There's another point I want to address: it looks like your treatment of the Great Depression was more integral to your position than I previously thought, so I want to explain what I consider its deficiencies. Specifically, there is no "aggregate demand" that needs to be created. If someone produces something, and people can't afford it, market forces make him drop his prices and not make so much in the future. There were numerous recessions simliar to 1929 (including in 1920) that did not blow up into a full scale depression for the simple reason that no one was pressured to fix prices in such a way that kept the economy from adjusting like in the above. Are you familiar with Say's Law ("supply creates its own demand")? If so, is there a specific reason you consider it invalid, or that some prerequisite is not met?
Good point. Yours *is* pretty big.
Now, as for my question, did you have a relevant comment to add?
Pharmacists are the ones that actually have to learn about the drugs and try to catch as many dangerous interactions the doctors may or may not know about as they can.
And I would consider it a "modern anachronism" that this wasn't computerized, everywhere, a long, long time ago. I shouldn't have to rely solely on a human "remembering" a dangerous combo. That's what databases are for.
Why are doctors so resistant to modernization, i.e., accepting that they aren't gods?
Any doctor who falls for that routine is a failure as a doctor.
Good thing the AMA restricts the supply of doctors. What would we do without it?