While I understand and agree with the point you are making, I guess that is simply not the deciding issue for me when it comes to this topic.
For me, the main issue is one of responsibility. I'm definitely a believer in the idea "With freedom comes responsibility" -- if you want the freedom of speech, you should take responsibility for your speech. I believe that it can (but doesn't always) lead to speech that is more genuine and more thought through, if you know that you will be linked to what you say. I also believe that it promotes real discussions, whereas anonymous comments are thrown off and the threads abandoned more readily. Attaching your identity to your statements represents making a commitment, which (for me, at least) is something I respect.
My only point was that: knowing that most terrorists are Arab is not sufficient to conclude that screening only Arabs will make you more likely to catch terrorists than screening non-Arabs.
Of course we can't calculate the exact probabilities involved. But it is incorrect (and arguably dangerous) to base policy on mathematical fallacies.
I understand what you're saying. To me, it just seems..... I don't know what the right word is. Not exactly "immoral," but...
My feeling is: if you really, honestly feel a certain way, then own up to it. Face the music. If it's unpopular, then have the strength of character to stand up for it and face whatever consequences come your way.
It's not like "karma" even really matters, in any real sense. So if your fear of having your karma lowered is MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU than your conviction about what you're saying... then maybe you shouldn't be saying it at all.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why parent (my comment) was modded "offtopic".
The grandparent comment stated that sometimes he wanted to post anonymously because he's a Republican that believes in God. Presumably, his point was that, that is something that culd bring him ridicule in this (or smoe other) forum.
My reply was simply trying to make the point that: when you post unpopular views anonymously, all it does it reinforce the negative view people have of those who hold those views. People are far more likely to write you off as being gutless or a troll.
On the other hand, if you really feel strongly about your views, that is exactly why you SHOULD stand up for them in a forum where they are unpopular.
Maybe I was being glib, but I was certainly trying to make a point relevant to the thread. Hiding behind anonymity will only add to the negative perception of a post that expresses an unpopular view.
"Because it's simply too much. Common sence tells me there has to be a better way to increase my security than going through my groin."
Well, I guess I still don't see why you would consider it am embarassment in particular. Inconvenient, yes. But it's not like you're being singled out... it's the way they treat everyone. At some of my favorite dance clubs in NYC and Los Angeles, I would get frisked before I was allowed to go in.... it's not embarassing; it's an important precaution.
"Also I cannot say that Czech beer is better than Canadian:-)."
Hmmmm.....I hadn't thought about it that way, but I see what you're saying.
I think, however, that I see a difference between traveling somewhere and expressing an opinion. If you are expressing an opinion, you are deliberately and expressedly participating in a PUBLIC act: you are putting something out there for public consumption. When you are traveling somewhere... you're just trying to get from point A to point B. That's not the same as expressing something.
...
Not an airtight argument, I know. But I think that captures the gist of why being forced to show ID when traveling is a different issue from owning up to one's public statements.
"Its because sometimes you want to post something without consequences, good or bad."
So... basically, the "coward" thing, then, right?
My philosophy has always been: if you care about about it to say it, you should care enough about it to have your name attached to it. If you don't feel strongly enough to have your name attached to it, then you don't feel strongly enough to justify saying it in the first place.
"we know most Muslims are not terrorists, [...] but the fact is that most of the terrorists are Arabs, so it only makes sense to focus scruitiny there."
OK, a brief mathematical point. If most Arabs are not terrorists, and most terrorists are Arabs, it does not follow that your highest probability of finding a terrorist will be by examining Arabs
I'll make a concrete example for you. Suppose you pick a group of people at random, and it happens to contain: 10 Arab Terrorists, 5 Non-Arab Terrorists, 90 Arab Non-Terrorists, and 10 Non-Arab Non-Terrorists. Now, you might argue that this does not reflect probabilities in the larger population, but... let me use this as an example, to make a mathematical pont.
In that situation, it is true that: Most Terrorists are Arabs. (10-to-5: among the terrorists, there are twice as many Arabs as Non-Arabs.)
In that situation, it is also true that: Most Arabs are NOT Terrorists. (90-to-10: among the Arabs, there are 9 times as many non-Terrorists as there are Terrorists.)
However, now look at the probabilities: If you examine Arabs only, your chances of finding a terrorist are 10% (there are 100 Arabs in the sample, 10 of them are terrorists). On the other hand, if you examine Non-Arabs only, your chances are finding a terrorist are 33% (there are 15 Non-Arabs, 5 of them are Terrorists).
I know these numbers seem skewed, but I want to make a mathematical point: just because most Terrorists are Arabs DOES NOT mean that you are more likely to find a terrorist by searching Arabs.
Yeah, but what you can "quite clearly see" is often extremely biased by things like "what you're expecting to see" and a misunderstanding of base-rate phenomena. (That's just a fancy term for what another commenter pointed out to you: you probably see more white people being searched because there are more white people overall, not because there is actually a higher proportion of white people searched.)
That's why I want to see references whenever a claim like this is made.
Because, you know, I certainly do know all 628 people on mymyspace.com "friends list"! And I'm sure it won't be confused by the fact that Lance Bass has 9 "profiles" on there (all of which say he's a different age, by the way), or the fact that Harry Potter and Malfoy are "friends" with one another in their profiles. I'm sure the NSA is keeping a full dossier on them.
Why don't all researchers rely on online profiles for their data about people? I can see the headlines now: New Study Reveals: All men have 8 inch d!cks, and all women are D-cups!
Can the anti-malware industry be trusted? Can microsoft be trusted? Can the IT industry be trusted?
One thing that all of this overlooks, is that it doesn't take malice for hysteria to spread.
premise: people fear what they don't understand. premise: most people don't understand computers.
I have a friend who fancied himself a home-taught computer expert. Armed with TweakXP, a few anti-virus tools, and a small handful of other gadgets, he was always offering to "optimize" and "fix" his friends' computers.
And lo! and behold, every single computer that was ever brought to him had "a major virus" or "a serious trojan" problem on it. Of course, there is so much media hype about viruses (and people's bad browsing habits) that this was fairly believable. However, the mere consistency of his diagnoses started making me suspicious....
Sure enough, after a few in-depth conversations, it turns out that he was using bad virus-detection software: some unknown little program that he assumed was "better than all the rest" because it "always found more" (it didn't occur to him that most of them were false positives); and moreover, it turns out he didn't even have a clear understanding of what a "virus" is.
But let me tell you: he had a stream of people in and out of his apartment that were absolutely convinced that ANY time there was EVER a problem with their machine, it MUST have been because of a virus.
Of course it has to do with quality. Of course, in an ideal world where the quality of all features is held constant, there is no reason to prefer a dingus that provides you with X features over a dingus that provides you with X+N features.
But in most people's practical experience, the quality of the features is NOT held constant.
This issue isn't new, either. Neither is it isolated to camera-walkie-talkie-email-phones, either.
Back when I was more of an audiophile, and kept myself current with high-end stereo equipment, it was basic common knowledge that if you want the really, truly GOOD stuff, you got components. Your amp, your pre-amp, your receiver, your cd CD player, (and so on) were all different physical things. Each one was dedicated to be the absolute best at that one function that it provided.
One reason behind this was the fact that you could mix-and-match. The company that makes the best amp may not be the company that makes the best CD player. And even if it is now, it may not be in 2 years. A true connoisseur of high-end audio equipment often has very strong opinions about what is best for what environments and contexts, and why. Lumping things together reduces choice.
Another reason is that different items upgrade and degrade differently. If my CD player is busted, why should I have to replace EVERYTHING (especially when I paid a lot for the rest of that hardware)? If I want to upgrade my pre-amp, why should I have to replace my amp, which I'm perfectly happy with?
True audiophiles look down their noses as all-in-one "boom boxes" that try to give you everything in one clunky device.
And I sense that this same attitude rolls over into many people's views of these all-in-one phone-devices.
There's an entire field, called Philosophy of Science, that has attempted to standardize science in a number of different ways: formalizing scientific process, formalizing notions such as "theory" and "evidence" and the relationship between them, devising standard scientific notations and languages for expressing such relationships, and so on and so forth.
Some authors you might want to look at include: C.S. Peirce, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Henri Poincaré, and Karl Popper.
Re:This issue is orthogonal to DRM
on
DRM and Democracy
·
· Score: 1
I apologize for being off-topic, but your sig said:
Grammar tip: "Effect" is a verb. "Affect" is a noun.
...which is making my brain bleed, because it's exactly backwards.
Or is it incorrect on purpose, as some kind of joke that I missed?
Slashdot Mirror
While I understand and agree with the point you are making, I guess that is simply not the deciding issue for me when it comes to this topic.
For me, the main issue is one of responsibility. I'm definitely a believer in the idea "With freedom comes responsibility" -- if you want the freedom of speech, you should take responsibility for your speech. I believe that it can (but doesn't always) lead to speech that is more genuine and more thought through, if you know that you will be linked to what you say. I also believe that it promotes real discussions, whereas anonymous comments are thrown off and the threads abandoned more readily. Attaching your identity to your statements represents making a commitment, which (for me, at least) is something I respect.
Ah, well... I'm pretty new to SlashDot. So maybe I just haven't been around enough to appreciate the complexities of its politics.
My only point was that: knowing that most terrorists are Arab is not sufficient to conclude that screening only Arabs will make you more likely to catch terrorists than screening non-Arabs.
Of course we can't calculate the exact probabilities involved. But it is incorrect (and arguably dangerous) to base policy on mathematical fallacies.
I understand what you're saying. To me, it just seems..... I don't know what the right word is. Not exactly "immoral," but...
My feeling is: if you really, honestly feel a certain way, then own up to it. Face the music. If it's unpopular, then have the strength of character to stand up for it and face whatever consequences come your way.
It's not like "karma" even really matters, in any real sense. So if your fear of having your karma lowered is MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU than your conviction about what you're saying... then maybe you shouldn't be saying it at all.
<shrug> Just my opinion, of course.
http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why parent (my comment) was modded "offtopic".
The grandparent comment stated that sometimes he wanted to post anonymously because he's a Republican that believes in God. Presumably, his point was that, that is something that culd bring him ridicule in this (or smoe other) forum.
My reply was simply trying to make the point that: when you post unpopular views anonymously, all it does it reinforce the negative view people have of those who hold those views. People are far more likely to write you off as being gutless or a troll.
On the other hand, if you really feel strongly about your views, that is exactly why you SHOULD stand up for them in a forum where they are unpopular.
Maybe I was being glib, but I was certainly trying to make a point relevant to the thread. Hiding behind anonymity will only add to the negative perception of a post that expresses an unpopular view.
Well, I guess I still don't see why you would consider it am embarassment in particular. Inconvenient, yes. But it's not like you're being singled out... it's the way they treat everyone. At some of my favorite dance clubs in NYC and Los Angeles, I would get frisked before I was allowed to go in.... it's not embarassing; it's an important precaution.
LOL! Well, can't argue with that..... and it is important for you to perpetuate the stereotype that all Republicans that believe in God are cowards?
If you care enough to say it, you should care enough to attach your name to it.
If it's not important enough to you to attach your name to it, it isn't important enough for you to say to begin with.
(That's my view, anyway.)
Why does it embarass you to participate in a procedure designed to increase your own safety?
That doesn't make sense to me.
If they are applying security to everyone, or randomly, I can't see how it is a "put down" to you for you to go through it.
Hmmmm.....I hadn't thought about it that way, but I see what you're saying.
I think, however, that I see a difference between traveling somewhere and expressing an opinion. If you are expressing an opinion, you are deliberately and expressedly participating in a PUBLIC act: you are putting something out there for public consumption. When you are traveling somewhere... you're just trying to get from point A to point B. That's not the same as expressing something.
...
Not an airtight argument, I know. But I think that captures the gist of why being forced to show ID when traveling is a different issue from owning up to one's public statements.
Hahaha... ok, fair enough.
My philosophy has always been: if you care about about it to say it, you should care enough about it to have your name attached to it. If you don't feel strongly enough to have your name attached to it, then you don't feel strongly enough to justify saying it in the first place.
Just MHO, of course.
Ooooh.... does that happen? I didn't know about that.
OK, a brief mathematical point. If most Arabs are not terrorists, and most terrorists are Arabs, it does not follow that your highest probability of finding a terrorist will be by examining Arabs
I'll make a concrete example for you. Suppose you pick a group of people at random, and it happens to contain: 10 Arab Terrorists, 5 Non-Arab Terrorists, 90 Arab Non-Terrorists, and 10 Non-Arab Non-Terrorists. Now, you might argue that this does not reflect probabilities in the larger population, but... let me use this as an example, to make a mathematical pont.
In that situation, it is true that: Most Terrorists are Arabs. (10-to-5: among the terrorists, there are twice as many Arabs as Non-Arabs.)
In that situation, it is also true that: Most Arabs are NOT Terrorists. (90-to-10: among the Arabs, there are 9 times as many non-Terrorists as there are Terrorists.)
However, now look at the probabilities: If you examine Arabs only, your chances of finding a terrorist are 10% (there are 100 Arabs in the sample, 10 of them are terrorists). On the other hand, if you examine Non-Arabs only, your chances are finding a terrorist are 33% (there are 15 Non-Arabs, 5 of them are Terrorists).
I know these numbers seem skewed, but I want to make a mathematical point: just because most Terrorists are Arabs DOES NOT mean that you are more likely to find a terrorist by searching Arabs.
Why do logged in users ever post as AC? I honestly don't understand why anyone would do that....
Yeah, but what you can "quite clearly see" is often extremely biased by things like "what you're expecting to see" and a misunderstanding of base-rate phenomena. (That's just a fancy term for what another commenter pointed out to you: you probably see more white people being searched because there are more white people overall, not because there is actually a higher proportion of white people searched.)
That's why I want to see references whenever a claim like this is made.
Good thing he's white.
What a great source for the NSA to rely on!
Because, you know, I certainly do know all 628 people on my myspace.com "friends list"! And I'm sure it won't be confused by the fact that Lance Bass has 9 "profiles" on there (all of which say he's a different age, by the way), or the fact that Harry Potter and Malfoy are "friends" with one another in their profiles. I'm sure the NSA is keeping a full dossier on them.
Why don't all researchers rely on online profiles for their data about people? I can see the headlines now: New Study Reveals: All men have 8 inch d!cks, and all women are D-cups!
Can the anti-malware industry be trusted? Can microsoft be trusted? Can the IT industry be trusted?
One thing that all of this overlooks, is that it doesn't take malice for hysteria to spread.
premise: people fear what they don't understand.
premise: most people don't understand computers.
I have a friend who fancied himself a home-taught computer expert. Armed with TweakXP, a few anti-virus tools, and a small handful of other gadgets, he was always offering to "optimize" and "fix" his friends' computers.
And lo! and behold, every single computer that was ever brought to him had "a major virus" or "a serious trojan" problem on it. Of course, there is so much media hype about viruses (and people's bad browsing habits) that this was fairly believable. However, the mere consistency of his diagnoses started making me suspicious....
Sure enough, after a few in-depth conversations, it turns out that he was using bad virus-detection software: some unknown little program that he assumed was "better than all the rest" because it "always found more" (it didn't occur to him that most of them were false positives); and moreover, it turns out he didn't even have a clear understanding of what a "virus" is.
But let me tell you: he had a stream of people in and out of his apartment that were absolutely convinced that ANY time there was EVER a problem with their machine, it MUST have been because of a virus.
Of course it has to do with quality. Of course, in an ideal world where the quality of all features is held constant, there is no reason to prefer a dingus that provides you with X features over a dingus that provides you with X+N features.
But in most people's practical experience, the quality of the features is NOT held constant.
This issue isn't new, either. Neither is it isolated to camera-walkie-talkie-email-phones, either.
Back when I was more of an audiophile, and kept myself current with high-end stereo equipment, it was basic common knowledge that if you want the really, truly GOOD stuff, you got components. Your amp, your pre-amp, your receiver, your cd CD player, (and so on) were all different physical things. Each one was dedicated to be the absolute best at that one function that it provided.
One reason behind this was the fact that you could mix-and-match. The company that makes the best amp may not be the company that makes the best CD player. And even if it is now, it may not be in 2 years. A true connoisseur of high-end audio equipment often has very strong opinions about what is best for what environments and contexts, and why. Lumping things together reduces choice.
Another reason is that different items upgrade and degrade differently. If my CD player is busted, why should I have to replace EVERYTHING (especially when I paid a lot for the rest of that hardware)? If I want to upgrade my pre-amp, why should I have to replace my amp, which I'm perfectly happy with?
True audiophiles look down their noses as all-in-one "boom boxes" that try to give you everything in one clunky device.
And I sense that this same attitude rolls over into many people's views of these all-in-one phone-devices.
... I certainly know that it does for me.
There's an entire field, called Philosophy of Science, that has attempted to standardize science in a number of different ways: formalizing scientific process, formalizing notions such as "theory" and "evidence" and the relationship between them, devising standard scientific notations and languages for expressing such relationships, and so on and so forth.
Some authors you might want to look at include: C.S. Peirce, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Henri Poincaré, and Karl Popper.
Or is it incorrect on purpose, as some kind of joke that I missed?
LOL!! Ok, you make a good point.