Sure, but if they spent 15 years not having switched to the available alternative applications, it is a lie to claim they had switched to linux. They planned to switch, switched a few users, and didn't switch the rest. I call that not actually switching.
Most organizational systems work. But only if you use one of them. If you're using one system, and you decide to switch to a different system, and actually just use parts of both systems, then you can't expect to get to the benefits of either system. That is a basic reality of organization; following the same system as your collegues is what gives most of the benefit, not the actual choice of system.
If they're not willing to use linux, they should use something else, as long as there is something they are willing to use. Clients who do things the Microsoft Way aren't nearly as big of a headache as clients who insist on using Windows, but don't follow MS's guidance on how to use it. Just like, people who hate *NIX who are using Linux anyways are also horrible clients.
The mechanics are, they write down on a piece of paper that that is where the money was earned, and they keep it in a real bank somewhere else.
The actual money went from a customer to the entity that they use to manage their CC merchant accounts. They just have some paperwork somewhere else that says, "Oh, that money is really owned by a whole different corporation!" and they just transfer it to another bank account they control at the same bank.
For actual humans, it is equivalent to moving money from your checking account to your savings account, and then promising that your savings account really belongs to grandma you just have an agreement to do the accounting for her.
Worse, under what legal jurisdiction are they when they're doing the checking?
If a country doesn't have any land, it doesn't have any anything. It doesn't have activities that happened there. The activities that "happened" will have "happened" in the places where the humans were!
Telling a joke is a cooperative effort;[9][10] it requires that the teller and the audience mutually agree in one form or another to understand the narrative which follows as a joke.
If you failed to achieve a mutually agreed effort for a joke to be understood, then it wasn't even a joke; it was only a failed attempt at humor.
No. Most of the Asgard became enlightened, and "Ascended" to another more advanced form of existence. Those who remained were the ones at an evolutionary dead end because they had altered their DNA too much for them to Ascend; and furthermore they also could no longer reproduce, and were all going to die from the DNA problems. Most of them elected to destroy their outposts to prevent the technology from falling into evil hands and causing a horrible legacy. They blew up their main remaining planet. But it was only "suicide" in the sense of shutting off a life support machine; they were dying and were beyond any hope. Most of them had already Ascended successfully, though. And some lived on.
Sealand at least has the advantage of having people.
Pitcairn Islands is a British Overseas Territory. Also it is a real place, with people. People accused of crimes there are tried under UK legal authority. In fact about 10 years ago they built a prison on the island to hold some of them.
It is going to be hard to convince any other jurisdiction that a place that has never had any people has legal citizens; you weren't born there, your parents weren't born there, and there is no embassy or consulate. You certainly weren't under their legal jurisdiction when you claimed you were accepting a new citizenship.
The thing about crimes done online, it doesn't matter where the server is in most cases. It matters where the law is, and if you interacted with computers in that place. Consider for example if you are in the USA and you make a prank phone call to the Queen of England; you probably violated laws in both countries! And nobody is going to ask about what country the telephone switching network was in. If the call was routed through Germany, it makes no difference. The activity happened at the two ends of the connection.
Because the way they have the tax laws set up, none of these companies will ever have written down an honest number representing "profit," the shells will never be sitting there in that configuration. The pea isn't under any of the shells, asking which one it is under just causes the trick to proceed to another stage where they briefly show you a different pea.
That's funny, in my town the cops get warrants to listen to the pay phones that are most commonly used for drug deals, and even though the newspapers report on it, they still bust lots of people that way.
The NSA may be listening to your phone calls, but they don't give a rats ass about drug dealers or that type of thing. The danger for the drug dealer is twofold; you might call from a phone they're otherwise listening to, or they might already be listening to the dealer's phone. If they're already listening to his phone, that is labor intensive and using a different phone doesn't shake the tail, it just means arrest is growing imminent. They'd also be checking the pager, and by using pay phones you're fixing an exact location that you were at at an exact time. With cell phones they only know what neighborhood you're each in unless they already have the stingray outside, and then you're screwed. And if they're already listening to your phone, and you're the buyer, he's totally screwed for sure. You using a pay phone to call a pager to get called back just makes it more obvious what is going on, and it guarantees that their interest now includes him. Whereas with just a cell phone a high quality code system, they'd be left unsure what the connection was!
There is an information glut. There is nothing to "solve" except to accept that there is an information glut, and stop returning to low quality sources of information.
Most have the same problem, but not all do. What are the people who find a lot of high quality content doing differently? Could it be as simple as the algorithm they use to decide which links to click on, and which to skip over? Does it require always opening links in new tabs so that there is less of a time penalty to closing a newly opened link as soon as it starts displaying lame or trendy web design? Does it require the discipline not to turn on javascript, but instead to simply close the tab and try a different source of information?
The term "liberal arts" is distinguished from "technical arts" by who studies it, not by what is studied.
So, your point is that you disagree with the basic concept of identity? That's a hard row to hoe, for sure. Good luck with that, I know I'm unlikely to even consider your absurdity.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success.
Even if true, that doesn't mean that IQ is incorrectly correlated with success. Like I keep saying, for most people in most contexts, IQ is a mostly correct measure of what most people consider to be intelligences.
OK, stop there. Is that what you think I claimed? Re-read what I said, and see if it says that. And, you just admitted that you understand you're just repeating assertions. Did you consider I might be engaged in something other than simply asserting conclusions? Do you understand that what I said doesn't refute what you said, it is simply something else that is even more strongly correlated. It is a claim of higher quality than yours, and yet it is clearly lacking on its face. That doesn't prove anything about what you said, rather it underlines that lack of proof for your statement; and it would be illogical to believe what you claim without proof because there are other theories offered to explain the known facts. You're wrong in that you have a well-formed belief about something known to be an unresolved issue.
Why would that be an interesting basis for a conversation, and why would anybody talking about knowledge even want to listen to you repeating yourself? I sure wouldn't, that's why I stopped reading there and just replied to the first part.
LOL weird comment. I only wrote a few words, pretty sad that you found that much to misunderstand. You keep saying I'm "wrong" about something, but actually you just don't understand my comments.
When you don't understand something, it might just be wrong, but you might also have just not understood it! That goes double when people are talking about Nippon. When talking about Nippon in English it is most likely that if it made literal sense, you misunderstood the translation.
And yes; you're claiming I'm wrong about something, all the burdens of proof are on you! If you can't prove that the situation in the comments is normal, (it tells you it isn't) then you can't even know if I'm wrong, you certainly can't make a case claiming that I'm wrong. That is just, I hate to say it, moronic.
Logically you shouldn't even know you disagree yet, but you're already all the way up to "yer rong!!!"
Right. Before I made a point about COBOL, nobody else had discussed it. I brought it up. If you didn't want to talk about COBOL, it would be a strange thing to reply to.
Your comprehension is still substantially lacking, but recognizing that I chose to speak of COBOL, and that I did so of my own free will without coercion, that is at least one small baby-step towards reading comprehension. Congratulations!
Oh, and you're wrong that it was only the first 7 columns where whitespace mattered. You simply don't know much about COBOL, probably should just stick with not knowing much about it instead of "golly I don't know but let me tell you about it anyways."
Almost everybody agrees that there is a thing described as "general intelligence." That much is clear. But the claim that the "g-factor" describes general intelligence is dubious; and the link you gave says it is only even claimed to account for "40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test." So everybody agrees that there is a thing called "general intelligence," and everybody agrees we don't have a measure for it yet.;)
That can all be true and yet if the standard deviation is high, it doesn't tell you shit anyways because in real life you usually deal with individuals rather than averages.
Everybody agrees IQ tests measure something, and everybody agrees there is overlap between what it measures and various traits and outcomes.
Proving that doesn't advance the argument. At all.
As to the claim that Feynman would have aced a "valid" IQ test, I think only one side of the argument is going to agree with that. If you read (or watch) his memoirs, he talks about having an IQ score too low to join MENSA!
He also talks about, he didn't figure out what happened with Challenger what he did was listen to the engineers who already knew and waved it under the noses of the management while on camera, forcing them to listen.
You say all that, but actually rich parents send their kids to tutoring designed to increase the scores by studying the types of knowledge that would allow for scoring high on the test without deducing anything.
And many of the questions actually have wrong answers if you're deducing the answer, because the required answers are the same wrong things you'll find in a "n Lies My Teacher Told Me" type of book! There were other kids giving the correct answer and being scored as wrong all along, and the reason it doesn't get caught and corrected is that the system ____(insert politics)____.
In many cases the "correct" answer is actually the simplification known to be incorrect that is taught to physics underclasspeople, and if you're "deducing" it isn't a sign of anything good. Maybe a sign a of simple mind. Maybe the next person say the simplification and realized it was too simple, and actually tried for a real answer? Guaranteed to be "wrong" by the test, all those real answers.;) So then you get a curve that goes up, but then goes back down, and you might even end up with a majority of outliers simply having strong memory skills.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success. It is really not a very way to start off if you're trying to prove even that is a test of general problem-solving. It clearly tests things, but there is no reason to assume that it is testing something generalized.
By that logic the 100m sprint isn't a measure of who can run fastest.
It isn't. The person who wins the 40m might have achieved a higher top speed. Also the guy in last place might have run faster than the winner while warming up. No way to know. You've got a lot of narrowing to do before you figure out what was measured by that test!
Cultural bias is a red herring, it's so old it stinks.
A red herring is something irrelevant that distracts. However, your complaint seems to instead be that it is wrong. On its face the accusation of cultural bias is obviously important to the utility of the test, so it can't be a red herring. You need to have a valid accusation in the first place if you want people to take your reasons seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but if they spent 15 years not having switched to the available alternative applications, it is a lie to claim they had switched to linux. They planned to switch, switched a few users, and didn't switch the rest. I call that not actually switching.
Most organizational systems work. But only if you use one of them. If you're using one system, and you decide to switch to a different system, and actually just use parts of both systems, then you can't expect to get to the benefits of either system. That is a basic reality of organization; following the same system as your collegues is what gives most of the benefit, not the actual choice of system.
If they're not willing to use linux, they should use something else, as long as there is something they are willing to use. Clients who do things the Microsoft Way aren't nearly as big of a headache as clients who insist on using Windows, but don't follow MS's guidance on how to use it. Just like, people who hate *NIX who are using Linux anyways are also horrible clients.
The mechanics are, they write down on a piece of paper that that is where the money was earned, and they keep it in a real bank somewhere else.
The actual money went from a customer to the entity that they use to manage their CC merchant accounts. They just have some paperwork somewhere else that says, "Oh, that money is really owned by a whole different corporation!" and they just transfer it to another bank account they control at the same bank.
For actual humans, it is equivalent to moving money from your checking account to your savings account, and then promising that your savings account really belongs to grandma you just have an agreement to do the accounting for her.
In the book Cryptonomicon they do!
On planet Earth? Not so much!
Worse, under what legal jurisdiction are they when they're doing the checking?
If a country doesn't have any land, it doesn't have any anything. It doesn't have activities that happened there. The activities that "happened" will have "happened" in the places where the humans were!
Martians will only suffer and die slowly on Earth, their bones won't actually crack. So good call!
I can tell you this much; Mars is going to have humans on it long before this satellite does!
From that link that you spammed without reading:
If you failed to achieve a mutually agreed effort for a joke to be understood, then it wasn't even a joke; it was only a failed attempt at humor.
No. Most of the Asgard became enlightened, and "Ascended" to another more advanced form of existence. Those who remained were the ones at an evolutionary dead end because they had altered their DNA too much for them to Ascend; and furthermore they also could no longer reproduce, and were all going to die from the DNA problems. Most of them elected to destroy their outposts to prevent the technology from falling into evil hands and causing a horrible legacy. They blew up their main remaining planet. But it was only "suicide" in the sense of shutting off a life support machine; they were dying and were beyond any hope. Most of them had already Ascended successfully, though. And some lived on.
What a moran! Of course there is a Picard Island.
And of course it is a lot nicer than Rikers Island!
Honestly, if I was trying for Pitcairn Island and ended up on Picard Island, I'd count my blessings! And tip my navigator.
Sealand at least has the advantage of having people.
Pitcairn Islands is a British Overseas Territory. Also it is a real place, with people. People accused of crimes there are tried under UK legal authority. In fact about 10 years ago they built a prison on the island to hold some of them.
It is going to be hard to convince any other jurisdiction that a place that has never had any people has legal citizens; you weren't born there, your parents weren't born there, and there is no embassy or consulate. You certainly weren't under their legal jurisdiction when you claimed you were accepting a new citizenship.
The thing about crimes done online, it doesn't matter where the server is in most cases. It matters where the law is, and if you interacted with computers in that place. Consider for example if you are in the USA and you make a prank phone call to the Queen of England; you probably violated laws in both countries! And nobody is going to ask about what country the telephone switching network was in. If the call was routed through Germany, it makes no difference. The activity happened at the two ends of the connection.
Because the way they have the tax laws set up, none of these companies will ever have written down an honest number representing "profit," the shells will never be sitting there in that configuration. The pea isn't under any of the shells, asking which one it is under just causes the trick to proceed to another stage where they briefly show you a different pea.
I paid $65 for a quarter of top shelf, but the shit I was paying $15/g for when I was 20 I can get a quarter for $35.
You must be in Colorado or someplace with high taxes. Prices I quoted are with tax!
LOL right, the Clinton Phone program that was extended to cell phones by Bush.
I guess it is an "Obama Phone" because that is more "politically correct" than just shouting the N-word.
That's funny, in my town the cops get warrants to listen to the pay phones that are most commonly used for drug deals, and even though the newspapers report on it, they still bust lots of people that way.
The NSA may be listening to your phone calls, but they don't give a rats ass about drug dealers or that type of thing. The danger for the drug dealer is twofold; you might call from a phone they're otherwise listening to, or they might already be listening to the dealer's phone. If they're already listening to his phone, that is labor intensive and using a different phone doesn't shake the tail, it just means arrest is growing imminent. They'd also be checking the pager, and by using pay phones you're fixing an exact location that you were at at an exact time. With cell phones they only know what neighborhood you're each in unless they already have the stingray outside, and then you're screwed. And if they're already listening to your phone, and you're the buyer, he's totally screwed for sure. You using a pay phone to call a pager to get called back just makes it more obvious what is going on, and it guarantees that their interest now includes him. Whereas with just a cell phone a high quality code system, they'd be left unsure what the connection was!
In short, your drug dealer is/was an idiot.
There is an information glut. There is nothing to "solve" except to accept that there is an information glut, and stop returning to low quality sources of information.
Most have the same problem, but not all do. What are the people who find a lot of high quality content doing differently? Could it be as simple as the algorithm they use to decide which links to click on, and which to skip over? Does it require always opening links in new tabs so that there is less of a time penalty to closing a newly opened link as soon as it starts displaying lame or trendy web design? Does it require the discipline not to turn on javascript, but instead to simply close the tab and try a different source of information?
The term "liberal arts" is distinguished from "technical arts" by who studies it, not by what is studied.
So, your point is that you disagree with the basic concept of identity ? That's a hard row to hoe, for sure. Good luck with that, I know I'm unlikely to even consider your absurdity.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success.
Even if true, that doesn't mean that IQ is incorrectly correlated with success. Like I keep saying, for most people in most contexts, IQ is a mostly correct measure of what most people consider to be intelligences.
OK, stop there. Is that what you think I claimed? Re-read what I said, and see if it says that. And, you just admitted that you understand you're just repeating assertions. Did you consider I might be engaged in something other than simply asserting conclusions? Do you understand that what I said doesn't refute what you said, it is simply something else that is even more strongly correlated. It is a claim of higher quality than yours, and yet it is clearly lacking on its face. That doesn't prove anything about what you said, rather it underlines that lack of proof for your statement; and it would be illogical to believe what you claim without proof because there are other theories offered to explain the known facts. You're wrong in that you have a well-formed belief about something known to be an unresolved issue.
Why would that be an interesting basis for a conversation, and why would anybody talking about knowledge even want to listen to you repeating yourself? I sure wouldn't, that's why I stopped reading there and just replied to the first part.
LOL weird comment. I only wrote a few words, pretty sad that you found that much to misunderstand. You keep saying I'm "wrong" about something, but actually you just don't understand my comments.
When you don't understand something, it might just be wrong, but you might also have just not understood it! That goes double when people are talking about Nippon. When talking about Nippon in English it is most likely that if it made literal sense, you misunderstood the translation.
And yes; you're claiming I'm wrong about something, all the burdens of proof are on you! If you can't prove that the situation in the comments is normal, (it tells you it isn't) then you can't even know if I'm wrong, you certainly can't make a case claiming that I'm wrong. That is just, I hate to say it, moronic.
Logically you shouldn't even know you disagree yet, but you're already all the way up to "yer rong!!!"
Right. Before I made a point about COBOL, nobody else had discussed it. I brought it up. If you didn't want to talk about COBOL, it would be a strange thing to reply to.
Your comprehension is still substantially lacking, but recognizing that I chose to speak of COBOL, and that I did so of my own free will without coercion, that is at least one small baby-step towards reading comprehension. Congratulations!
Oh, and you're wrong that it was only the first 7 columns where whitespace mattered. You simply don't know much about COBOL, probably should just stick with not knowing much about it instead of "golly I don't know but let me tell you about it anyways."
Almost everybody agrees that there is a thing described as "general intelligence." That much is clear. But the claim that the "g-factor" describes general intelligence is dubious; and the link you gave says it is only even claimed to account for "40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test." So everybody agrees that there is a thing called "general intelligence," and everybody agrees we don't have a measure for it yet. ;)
That can all be true and yet if the standard deviation is high, it doesn't tell you shit anyways because in real life you usually deal with individuals rather than averages.
Everybody agrees IQ tests measure something, and everybody agrees there is overlap between what it measures and various traits and outcomes.
Proving that doesn't advance the argument. At all.
As to the claim that Feynman would have aced a "valid" IQ test, I think only one side of the argument is going to agree with that. If you read (or watch) his memoirs, he talks about having an IQ score too low to join MENSA!
He also talks about, he didn't figure out what happened with Challenger what he did was listen to the engineers who already knew and waved it under the noses of the management while on camera, forcing them to listen.
You say all that, but actually rich parents send their kids to tutoring designed to increase the scores by studying the types of knowledge that would allow for scoring high on the test without deducing anything.
And many of the questions actually have wrong answers if you're deducing the answer, because the required answers are the same wrong things you'll find in a "n Lies My Teacher Told Me" type of book! There were other kids giving the correct answer and being scored as wrong all along, and the reason it doesn't get caught and corrected is that the system ____(insert politics)____.
In many cases the "correct" answer is actually the simplification known to be incorrect that is taught to physics underclasspeople, and if you're "deducing" it isn't a sign of anything good. Maybe a sign a of simple mind. Maybe the next person say the simplification and realized it was too simple, and actually tried for a real answer? Guaranteed to be "wrong" by the test, all those real answers. ;) So then you get a curve that goes up, but then goes back down, and you might even end up with a majority of outliers simply having strong memory skills.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success. It is really not a very way to start off if you're trying to prove even that is a test of general problem-solving. It clearly tests things, but there is no reason to assume that it is testing something generalized.
SJWs
If it is growing out of your neck, it isn't a "beard."
"The More You Know!"
By that logic the 100m sprint isn't a measure of who can run fastest.
It isn't. The person who wins the 40m might have achieved a higher top speed. Also the guy in last place might have run faster than the winner while warming up. No way to know. You've got a lot of narrowing to do before you figure out what was measured by that test!
Cultural bias is a red herring, it's so old it stinks.
A red herring is something irrelevant that distracts. However, your complaint seems to instead be that it is wrong. On its face the accusation of cultural bias is obviously important to the utility of the test, so it can't be a red herring. You need to have a valid accusation in the first place if you want people to take your reasons seriously.