And yet you're still pathologically unable to admit that you can redirect into the Sun using a tiny amount of fuel, and that it costs the same amount of fuel for the cheapest trip anywhere away from Earth, because of how gravity assist works.
The existing Sun probe uses LESS fuel than the thought experiment. Yes, that will be obvious to anybody who checks the thread and looks it up.
Reminds of Feynman talking about the difference between being able to do the math, and understanding what it means. A dive into the Sun is just a thought experiment. An actual craft going there would never use that simplified formula unless it had really, really cheap fuel.
You obviously didn't read the study, or didn't understand it.
If the study I mentioned, but didn't cite, sounds kinda-like a different study you heard about, but is different in key ways that you point out... then you probably are thinking of a different study! Derrrrr! But you shouldn't need a study to understand that INFORMATION can be transmitted without a molecule being transferred, and that if there is information flow, then you can't just wave your hand and say there "can't" be an effect because no molecules were transferred. There are lots of ways to cause changes in the human body without transferring molecules.
Go get a clue. You think that identifying a possible physical mechanism for an effect means you're supporting people who claim there is some effect, even though those people claim specific mechanisms that are debunked. That is "us and them" idiocy.
If there is a physical mechanism or not is an entirely NEUTRAL question of basic science. It does NOT support or oppose proponents or detractors of clinically dis-proven methods of treatment. In fact the only people it makes a difference to are the people who attack "quackery" with quack-science and wrong guesses about what is or isn't physically possible.
Keeping in mind you're claiming to have been mentioning it, I suggest you go back and re-read your posts, and stop replying to me. I don't need an apology, but you clearly missed the point, argued against something different than what I said, and are now claiming you didn't. LOL
Or, now that you're on the right subject, it should be OBVIOUS to you that the minimum amount of fuel required is the SAME. Not double. And the thought experiments for DIVING into the Sun, aka Landing on it, is totally not relevant. And real life solar probes use LESS energy than that thought experiment (duh).
The traditional unix desktop has a movable taskbar that is just an application. Moving it left or right can be done without forcing any "innovation" on people.
This is exactly the sort of idiocy that has caused a large percent (~60%) to abandon the 2 projects that used to combine for over 90% user share.
No, I would not at all be amazed. You wildly presume that being against the motivations of the action must be based on ignorance of the results. But there is a failure of logic in there.
I'm not a "quack" or justifying "quackery," I'm pointing to a possible physical mechanism to support marginal effects where the quacks claim significant effects, and the self-appointed anti-quacks have claimed that there is no possible physical mechanism.
Flat-earth thinking is more of a danger than misguided nutritional supplements. The history of science should make that obvious.
And getting called a "quack" by a guy with a LaVey quote as a sig is really funny.
Why are you still skipping over the part about redirecting without using fuel you carried with you? Are you really that frightened by understanding what I said?
So charisma is a bunch of meaningless fluff for looks, like a planned garden, and it requires keeping the important stuff, like a compost pile, out of sight.
No thanks. When I see a good compost pile, I'm thinking about growing vegetables, the fruit of the Earth, life itself, the Beauty of it all. When I see a planned garden, I think about how silly and useless all this fake BS is. If they pulled out some of those flowers and planted fruit trees, they'd look better to me.
Woz is more charismatic now than he used to be. There was an audio interview linked from slashdot, probably before your time, but I think it was 2001. Whenever the interviewer would start to speak, he would compulsively interrupt. It was painful to listen to. But he said a bunch of interesting stuff, so we all cringed our way through multiple listenings.
Re:Social Interaction Guide for the Geek/Engineer
on
Hacking Charisma
·
· Score: 1
Just be careful when your new "friends" invite you out to the parking lot, "for a good time."
I read much of the story, so allow me to clarify. Puppies are up, and she must be enlightened or have super-powers because she uses a treadmill as an office chair. Also, puppies.
Like the assholes from Stanford in the story. Just hand them a puppy. See how much more likable they are holding the puppy than opening their mouths? $100K, please.
Very little sold by wally world is made in the same factories as the regular product with the same product number. The reason is that suppliers get paid 5% less, and at the volumes they deal in, they would often lose money selling to wally unless they lowered production costs. So textiles sold there are actually thinner. A plastic rake has less plastic. Pickles have less or cheaper spices. Etc., etc.
It is a giant scam, they sell products with 5% less production value for a 3% lower price.
I don't think they want a "silver bullet." I think they want they bullet that has a bunch of metrics attached to it that guarantees it will be silver, and that silver is ____ percent effective at _____, so that they can "prove" things were ____ percent better than they would have been otherwise.
I was once negotiating with a very honest manager. She explained she didn't care what my product (a computer kiosk) did, as long as it was minimally appropriate for the task. She also didn't care how much it cost, because she was going to earmark x dollars for the project, and as long as the price was the same as what I used for other customers,(to keep her from looking like she over-paid) she didn't care how many units she bought. What she cared about was what metrics it would provide. The more lines the reporting interface could provide in the form of "___ hours of ___ provided to ____," the more she wanted to buy it from me. Those metrics, regardless of the actual specific numbers in them, were what would let her prove value from buying the systems.
That was when I shifted my focus to (very) small businesses. They just want to make money, and reporting is a chore.:)
Everybody knows Steve Jobs was charismatic, because they were always told he was, and they've only ever seen him pictures and tailored media presentations.
Creepy, creepy, creepy. To me, even in the canned media spots.
But they always tell you how charismatic he is, so you're primed to like him.
I skimmed a disgusting amount of fluff to get to the meat, and it turned out to be the same nonsense the other self-help idiots spew.
Yes, if you're willing to "trust" somebody to make a bunch of changes in your life and routine, you'll feel different afterwards. Yes, if you're unsatisfied with life, feeling different is likely to be welcomed.
In the end there was no "hacking," no understanding, no information. Just hand-waving, personal stories, puppies as props and crutches, embracing a "higher power." Throw in making excuses to explain away whatever "happened" to you that you're clinging to, and you've got the latest flavor of pop psy.
If that was the problem, it wouldn't have been one, because the editors could have simply tossed out rude questions. We all know that RMS would only have seen whatever list of questions were emailed to him. He doesn't "surf the web" to become independently shocked by whatever we're saying.
I've seen good managers. The best I saw lost her job the first time a serious moral "situation" came up and she did what was best for the company (the "right" thing) instead of what was best for the politics of her boss.
I believe in the existence of companies where the good managers rise. I haven't seen it, but I have seen good managers. Each company I worked for had different pros and cons, surely there is one out there that gets that right.
A good teacher might not need to be good at their field.
The best computer teacher I ever had was the math teacher who knew which library (school, other school, public, university) would have the various books with answers to the questions I asked.
The best math teachers I had made plenty of mistakes, they were not very good at "math," but they were good at finding the logic errors hidden in the questions students asked, and were able to lead them to discovery.
I agree. I care a lot more about making sure that what I say and do is consistent with my principles than I care if people find it "tiresome." Perhaps they are "tired" because I caused them to think about subjects which contain cognitive dissonance. Trying to make them happy might actually be acting as an enabler of harmful and incorrect beliefs. Especially if people who are more _______ find the same statements more "real" and express appreciation. And if they're wrong, at least I'd be helping people to self-select out of my way unless they're crazy in a compatible way.;)
It is normal to grow up to be opposite to the way you were as a child in various ways. Or not to. And every person has a subjective reason for the change. Those reasons generally do not stand up to scientific scrutiny; we know how we feel about the changes in our lives a lot better than we understand why those changes actually happen.
The whole premise that a person who was a shy child had to "learn" something to become a charismatic adult requires a lot of citation, in my opinion. It is equally likely that they simply had a bunch of charismatic genes that activated at the appropriate times in their development for them to take the right queues from their environment. But you don't feel genes activating. You do feel the changes in your life that result. And you do rationalize any change in yourself that you perceive, based on the details of your life at the time.
It may very well be that, like most things, it is an equal measure of nature and nurture, when the nurture happens automatically following the nature, and can't be replicated without it, but will vary depending on environment.
The claim I think is that it is sociopathic to want to manipulate people with falsehoods so that they will like you more. The claim is not that being sociopathic makes you better at it; it simply means you're more apt to try.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet you're still pathologically unable to admit that you can redirect into the Sun using a tiny amount of fuel, and that it costs the same amount of fuel for the cheapest trip anywhere away from Earth, because of how gravity assist works.
The existing Sun probe uses LESS fuel than the thought experiment. Yes, that will be obvious to anybody who checks the thread and looks it up.
Reminds of Feynman talking about the difference between being able to do the math, and understanding what it means. A dive into the Sun is just a thought experiment. An actual craft going there would never use that simplified formula unless it had really, really cheap fuel.
You obviously didn't read the study, or didn't understand it.
If the study I mentioned, but didn't cite, sounds kinda-like a different study you heard about, but is different in key ways that you point out... then you probably are thinking of a different study! Derrrrr! But you shouldn't need a study to understand that INFORMATION can be transmitted without a molecule being transferred, and that if there is information flow, then you can't just wave your hand and say there "can't" be an effect because no molecules were transferred. There are lots of ways to cause changes in the human body without transferring molecules.
Go get a clue. You think that identifying a possible physical mechanism for an effect means you're supporting people who claim there is some effect, even though those people claim specific mechanisms that are debunked. That is "us and them" idiocy.
If there is a physical mechanism or not is an entirely NEUTRAL question of basic science. It does NOT support or oppose proponents or detractors of clinically dis-proven methods of treatment. In fact the only people it makes a difference to are the people who attack "quackery" with quack-science and wrong guesses about what is or isn't physically possible.
Keeping in mind you're claiming to have been mentioning it, I suggest you go back and re-read your posts, and stop replying to me. I don't need an apology, but you clearly missed the point, argued against something different than what I said, and are now claiming you didn't. LOL
Or, now that you're on the right subject, it should be OBVIOUS to you that the minimum amount of fuel required is the SAME. Not double. And the thought experiments for DIVING into the Sun, aka Landing on it, is totally not relevant. And real life solar probes use LESS energy than that thought experiment (duh).
Get a clue.
Saturday, Sunday, New Years Day, even Leap Day, are all fairly normal days, that fall inside a normal week and month.
I guess by "these types of calendars" you must mean, batshit crazy ones "nobody" is going to use...
The traditional unix desktop has a movable taskbar that is just an application. Moving it left or right can be done without forcing any "innovation" on people.
This is exactly the sort of idiocy that has caused a large percent (~60%) to abandon the 2 projects that used to combine for over 90% user share.
No, I would not at all be amazed. You wildly presume that being against the motivations of the action must be based on ignorance of the results. But there is a failure of logic in there.
I'm not a "quack" or justifying "quackery," I'm pointing to a possible physical mechanism to support marginal effects where the quacks claim significant effects, and the self-appointed anti-quacks have claimed that there is no possible physical mechanism.
Flat-earth thinking is more of a danger than misguided nutritional supplements. The history of science should make that obvious.
And getting called a "quack" by a guy with a LaVey quote as a sig is really funny.
If you were a slashdot reader, you wouldn't ask for a cite! lol
So that only Judas comes before Jesus? I don't think you're reducing the debate there. ;)
But truly being reasonable about Judas is a lot to ask. http://news.nationalgeographic...
An example of things that are complimentary and opposite does nothing to alter THIS example. ;) aka "derrrrrrr"
Why are you still skipping over the part about redirecting without using fuel you carried with you? Are you really that frightened by understanding what I said?
That is pathetic.
So charisma is a bunch of meaningless fluff for looks, like a planned garden, and it requires keeping the important stuff, like a compost pile, out of sight.
No thanks. When I see a good compost pile, I'm thinking about growing vegetables, the fruit of the Earth, life itself, the Beauty of it all. When I see a planned garden, I think about how silly and useless all this fake BS is. If they pulled out some of those flowers and planted fruit trees, they'd look better to me.
Woz is more charismatic now than he used to be. There was an audio interview linked from slashdot, probably before your time, but I think it was 2001. Whenever the interviewer would start to speak, he would compulsively interrupt. It was painful to listen to. But he said a bunch of interesting stuff, so we all cringed our way through multiple listenings.
Just be careful when your new "friends" invite you out to the parking lot, "for a good time."
I read much of the story, so allow me to clarify. Puppies are up, and she must be enlightened or have super-powers because she uses a treadmill as an office chair. Also, puppies.
Like the assholes from Stanford in the story. Just hand them a puppy. See how much more likable they are holding the puppy than opening their mouths? $100K, please.
Very little sold by wally world is made in the same factories as the regular product with the same product number. The reason is that suppliers get paid 5% less, and at the volumes they deal in, they would often lose money selling to wally unless they lowered production costs. So textiles sold there are actually thinner. A plastic rake has less plastic. Pickles have less or cheaper spices. Etc., etc.
It is a giant scam, they sell products with 5% less production value for a 3% lower price.
I don't think they want a "silver bullet." I think they want they bullet that has a bunch of metrics attached to it that guarantees it will be silver, and that silver is ____ percent effective at _____, so that they can "prove" things were ____ percent better than they would have been otherwise.
I was once negotiating with a very honest manager. She explained she didn't care what my product (a computer kiosk) did, as long as it was minimally appropriate for the task. She also didn't care how much it cost, because she was going to earmark x dollars for the project, and as long as the price was the same as what I used for other customers,(to keep her from looking like she over-paid) she didn't care how many units she bought. What she cared about was what metrics it would provide. The more lines the reporting interface could provide in the form of "___ hours of ___ provided to ____," the more she wanted to buy it from me. Those metrics, regardless of the actual specific numbers in them, were what would let her prove value from buying the systems.
That was when I shifted my focus to (very) small businesses. They just want to make money, and reporting is a chore. :)
Everybody knows Steve Jobs was charismatic, because they were always told he was, and they've only ever seen him pictures and tailored media presentations.
Creepy, creepy, creepy. To me, even in the canned media spots.
But they always tell you how charismatic he is, so you're primed to like him.
I skimmed a disgusting amount of fluff to get to the meat, and it turned out to be the same nonsense the other self-help idiots spew.
Yes, if you're willing to "trust" somebody to make a bunch of changes in your life and routine, you'll feel different afterwards. Yes, if you're unsatisfied with life, feeling different is likely to be welcomed.
In the end there was no "hacking," no understanding, no information. Just hand-waving, personal stories, puppies as props and crutches, embracing a "higher power." Throw in making excuses to explain away whatever "happened" to you that you're clinging to, and you've got the latest flavor of pop psy.
If that was the problem, it wouldn't have been one, because the editors could have simply tossed out rude questions. We all know that RMS would only have seen whatever list of questions were emailed to him. He doesn't "surf the web" to become independently shocked by whatever we're saying.
I've seen good managers. The best I saw lost her job the first time a serious moral "situation" came up and she did what was best for the company (the "right" thing) instead of what was best for the politics of her boss.
I believe in the existence of companies where the good managers rise. I haven't seen it, but I have seen good managers. Each company I worked for had different pros and cons, surely there is one out there that gets that right.
A good teacher might not need to be good at their field.
The best computer teacher I ever had was the math teacher who knew which library (school, other school, public, university) would have the various books with answers to the questions I asked.
The best math teachers I had made plenty of mistakes, they were not very good at "math," but they were good at finding the logic errors hidden in the questions students asked, and were able to lead them to discovery.
I agree. I care a lot more about making sure that what I say and do is consistent with my principles than I care if people find it "tiresome." Perhaps they are "tired" because I caused them to think about subjects which contain cognitive dissonance. Trying to make them happy might actually be acting as an enabler of harmful and incorrect beliefs. Especially if people who are more _______ find the same statements more "real" and express appreciation. And if they're wrong, at least I'd be helping people to self-select out of my way unless they're crazy in a compatible way. ;)
It is normal to grow up to be opposite to the way you were as a child in various ways. Or not to. And every person has a subjective reason for the change. Those reasons generally do not stand up to scientific scrutiny; we know how we feel about the changes in our lives a lot better than we understand why those changes actually happen.
The whole premise that a person who was a shy child had to "learn" something to become a charismatic adult requires a lot of citation, in my opinion. It is equally likely that they simply had a bunch of charismatic genes that activated at the appropriate times in their development for them to take the right queues from their environment. But you don't feel genes activating. You do feel the changes in your life that result. And you do rationalize any change in yourself that you perceive, based on the details of your life at the time.
It may very well be that, like most things, it is an equal measure of nature and nurture, when the nurture happens automatically following the nature, and can't be replicated without it, but will vary depending on environment.
The claim I think is that it is sociopathic to want to manipulate people with falsehoods so that they will like you more. The claim is not that being sociopathic makes you better at it; it simply means you're more apt to try.