You're assuming that because I have an inquiring and skeptical mind that somehow something doesn't fit my "value or belief system." No, you don't need to fake evidence to find something wrong with the Chinese government. I think it's very oppressive and likely corrupt, and the reports of torture and censorship are very disturbing. However, just because they're bad doesn't necessarily mean that the other "side" (The United States) won't slander them even further with propaganda. "Cyber attacks" could be the next justification for war, similar to "Weapons of Mass Destruction (TM)" in the Iraq war. In my opinion, both countries are propaganda-spewing machines.
I didn't RTFA, but the OP you were responding to seemed to be making a legitimate and very objective criticism to the content of the article. If your anti-PRC bias has gotten to the point where you feel like you need to criticize anyone pointing out a flaw in any argument that criticizes China, you need to take a step back and think about how that might affect your objectivity.
Who knows, maybe you are the one spreading propaganda. Someone could have faked the evidence of this "50 cent gang" in order to make China look bad. Basically both sides have the motivation to do this sort of thing and it can be hard to figure out who is who sometimes.
Just because it can't make perfect predictions all of the time doesn't mean that it is useless. You're right, people aren't rational and random chance plays into most things. If you ever take an Econometrics class, you'll learn that predictive Econometric equations always include a random error variable.
Furthermore, in your example, I don't think that showing that people don't take the most selfish path is a "useless" finding. What they did was generate data about how people usually behave. Concepts from Psychology such as empathy and the norm of reciprocity may help to explain this behavior (and the data is capable of reinforcing these theories). The data can be used to predict how people will behave in the future. THAT is invaluable.
Despite what you say, game theory is very intriguing and Econometrics is incredibly useful. You just have to be aware of the limitations, and know how to use the tools in your toolbox effectively.
I don't see how this invalidates my point. You're saying that it's impossible to put the virus on a non-jailbroken phone... which is exactly what Apple would want if they designed the virus themselves.
Has it occurred to anyone else how this could benefit Apple? The hack specifically only affects "jailbroken" phones. If people begin to see unlocked phones as less secure and safe than phones that haven't been tampered with, they are less likely to violate Apple's business agreements and also to make Apple appear incompetent by doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs himself is responsible for this Rickrolling.
Things that affect our health are ALREADY regulated, like the ban on stem cell research. Personally I think this regulation is a good thing -- private insurance companies will fuck you in the ass for an extra dollar. That's capitalism for you. They need to be reined in.
I don't mind getting fucked in the ass for an extra dollar when we're talking about buying espresso machines or iphones, but this is our HEALTH we are discussing here. I do not want my health to be fucked.
You still have to speak in person with people in public when you go to work, run errands, or go out to do something fun. Some jobs require that you can speak well, like being a salesman or a politician. Your personal relationships with your friends and especially your family will require you to talk with them, even if just to say "I love you." Most people don't know sign language and writing everything on a notepad for someone to read is awkward and more time-consuming.
Go outside once in awhile. Seek professional help.
Cuba? The country that only recently decided to "allow" it's citizens to have access to personal computers? You're seriously holding up CUBA as an example of a free country? And North Korea? The country that doesn't allow any printed material or videocameras into it's borders, and worships it's supreme dictator as a God? You're holding up CUBA and NORTH KOREA as examples of freedom? Give me a fucking break. You've been brainwashed by communist propaganda.
Well, I am a psychology major. I know a little bit about human development. Besides, if I was born before 1980 then I wouldn't have grown up with the internet and I wouldn't be here to tell you that I turned out just fine despite having unfettered access to it.
I wholly disagree with the "screen-time" theory being sold by your daughter's school (and I am willing to bet it is being sold by old folks who primarily think of televisions, not computers, when they think of "screens"). Sure, dumbly sitting in front of a screen all day and passively absorbing what flickers across it (like a television) is not very cognitively stimulating or conducive to mental development. However, a computer is very different from a television. It's something you interact with actively. I was born in 1987 and I had access to a computer and the internet as early as the age of 4. I learned to type WAY before it was taught in school, I became very comfortable with troubleshooting computers, and by the time I was 12 I could design and publish a basic website and write small portions of HTML. For the most part the "violent games" on the computer, like Starcraft, helped to develop my cognitive abilities, and being exposed to pornography at a young age was not traumatizing and didn't lead me to irresponsible behavior (my parents, especially my Dad, had a mature attitude about sex and sex education).
Today, I'm a university student, and I've nearly graduated with Bachelor's of Science in Psychology with a minor in Economics. I also enjoy the privilege of being an undergraduate Laurels scholar. If anything, having access to a computer with the internet as a young child helped rather than hampered my development. I know that I came out a lot better than the kids who spent most of their childhood watching television. Do you think that if you wait until your daughter is 10 or 12 to introduce her to the internet and the use of a computer that she will be very comfortable using one as a teenager? Do you think she will even be interested in using it and learning how to do things like make websites? Personally I think you are giving your daughter a severe disadvantage in life by attempting to shelter her from "screen time." Let's face it, the modern world is filled with screens. When I go to school, sometimes we have class in the computer lab. The professor almost always has access to a classroom computer and a video overhead which are connected to a digital projector. When I do homework, I'm doing it on a computer. When I go to work at my school's Distance Learning Center to do video production, or convert projector reel films to DVD format, I use all kinds of screens and computers. When I am at home and I want to blow off steam, I play videogames on my computer or watch movies and sitcoms on websites like hulu.com. Basically, as a responsible adult and college student, almost ALL of my time is spent in front of a screen. It's going to be the same or worse for your daughter, as she comes from a generation even younger than mine. Please, for her sake, don't wait too long to teach her how to use the internet. It is a wonderful learning device and it is going to be a huge part of her life.
This is probably just a correlation; students who take notes are more likely to be paying attention than students who don't take notes. That doesn't mean that every student who doesn't take notes isn't paying attention.
As a student and an active listener who rarely takes notes (but always studies for exams), I'm willing to bet that whether or not a student asks questions or makes comments during a lecture is a better predictor of performance than whether or not they are writing down every word that comes out of your mouth like automatons. I am frequently shocked to see many of my fellow students writing down EVERYTHING a professor says, even the most obvious or trivial information, and even if it is already covered verbatim in the textbook or lecture notes.
What's sad is that some people might actually think those would be good jobs and that the economy would be stimulated. Everyone with even a weakling's grasp on Economics is cringing right about now.
Just because what we're studying is difficult to measure or interpret doesn't mean that it isn't science. Psychology, especially behaviorism, is quite scientifically robust.
So you've deduced that every psychologist in the world is a Freudian pseudo-scientist obsessed with fixations and dream interpretations. Congratulations, you're a douchebag who knows nothing about psychology or what psychologists do.
Criticizing Freud is picking some pretty low-hanging fruit. Why don't you formulate an argument which postulates that B.F. Skinner wasn't a scientist and then get back to us. Good luck.
I type e-mails in my living room on my digital projector... but only sometimes because I don't like to burn out the bulb for trivial stuff that I could do on my LCD monitor. Does that count?
If you had read the article, you'd notice that the FBI have been working on this particular case since 2007. The story about Mueller nearly falling for a phishing scam is from 2009. I don't think the two events have anything to do with each other.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that because I have an inquiring and skeptical mind that somehow something doesn't fit my "value or belief system." No, you don't need to fake evidence to find something wrong with the Chinese government. I think it's very oppressive and likely corrupt, and the reports of torture and censorship are very disturbing. However, just because they're bad doesn't necessarily mean that the other "side" (The United States) won't slander them even further with propaganda. "Cyber attacks" could be the next justification for war, similar to "Weapons of Mass Destruction (TM)" in the Iraq war. In my opinion, both countries are propaganda-spewing machines.
I didn't RTFA, but the OP you were responding to seemed to be making a legitimate and very objective criticism to the content of the article. If your anti-PRC bias has gotten to the point where you feel like you need to criticize anyone pointing out a flaw in any argument that criticizes China, you need to take a step back and think about how that might affect your objectivity.
That isn't what this commenter had to say.
Who knows, maybe you are the one spreading propaganda. Someone could have faked the evidence of this "50 cent gang" in order to make China look bad. Basically both sides have the motivation to do this sort of thing and it can be hard to figure out who is who sometimes.
Trust me: nobody cares about your children. That is because they are your children.
I fixed your sig there. It had an issue with causation.
It seems likely to me that the worms will be subjected to various treatments ("test groups") to see if there is a way to reduce this muscle atrophy.
You seem confident that you know what the "fix" is, but without experimentation your suggestion is merely a hypothesis.
Case closed
Obviously you didn't get very far in your studies of economics. I guess calculus and multivariate linear regression isn't math?
Just because it can't make perfect predictions all of the time doesn't mean that it is useless. You're right, people aren't rational and random chance plays into most things. If you ever take an Econometrics class, you'll learn that predictive Econometric equations always include a random error variable.
Furthermore, in your example, I don't think that showing that people don't take the most selfish path is a "useless" finding. What they did was generate data about how people usually behave. Concepts from Psychology such as empathy and the norm of reciprocity may help to explain this behavior (and the data is capable of reinforcing these theories). The data can be used to predict how people will behave in the future. THAT is invaluable.
Despite what you say, game theory is very intriguing and Econometrics is incredibly useful. You just have to be aware of the limitations, and know how to use the tools in your toolbox effectively.
I don't see how this invalidates my point. You're saying that it's impossible to put the virus on a non-jailbroken phone ... which is exactly what Apple would want if they designed the virus themselves.
Oh my, I seem to have upset an Apple fanboy with mod points.
Has it occurred to anyone else how this could benefit Apple? The hack specifically only affects "jailbroken" phones. If people begin to see unlocked phones as less secure and safe than phones that haven't been tampered with, they are less likely to violate Apple's business agreements and also to make Apple appear incompetent by doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs himself is responsible for this Rickrolling.
Things that affect our health are ALREADY regulated, like the ban on stem cell research. Personally I think this regulation is a good thing -- private insurance companies will fuck you in the ass for an extra dollar. That's capitalism for you. They need to be reined in.
I don't mind getting fucked in the ass for an extra dollar when we're talking about buying espresso machines or iphones, but this is our HEALTH we are discussing here. I do not want my health to be fucked.
Speedy results don't help us when we can't act on them and have to wait for the hand count to be completed.
You still have to speak in person with people in public when you go to work, run errands, or go out to do something fun. Some jobs require that you can speak well, like being a salesman or a politician. Your personal relationships with your friends and especially your family will require you to talk with them, even if just to say "I love you." Most people don't know sign language and writing everything on a notepad for someone to read is awkward and more time-consuming.
Go outside once in awhile. Seek professional help.
Cuba? The country that only recently decided to "allow" it's citizens to have access to personal computers? You're seriously holding up CUBA as an example of a free country? And North Korea? The country that doesn't allow any printed material or videocameras into it's borders, and worships it's supreme dictator as a God? You're holding up CUBA and NORTH KOREA as examples of freedom? Give me a fucking break. You've been brainwashed by communist propaganda.
Well, I am a psychology major. I know a little bit about human development. Besides, if I was born before 1980 then I wouldn't have grown up with the internet and I wouldn't be here to tell you that I turned out just fine despite having unfettered access to it.
I wholly disagree with the "screen-time" theory being sold by your daughter's school (and I am willing to bet it is being sold by old folks who primarily think of televisions, not computers, when they think of "screens"). Sure, dumbly sitting in front of a screen all day and passively absorbing what flickers across it (like a television) is not very cognitively stimulating or conducive to mental development. However, a computer is very different from a television. It's something you interact with actively. I was born in 1987 and I had access to a computer and the internet as early as the age of 4. I learned to type WAY before it was taught in school, I became very comfortable with troubleshooting computers, and by the time I was 12 I could design and publish a basic website and write small portions of HTML. For the most part the "violent games" on the computer, like Starcraft, helped to develop my cognitive abilities, and being exposed to pornography at a young age was not traumatizing and didn't lead me to irresponsible behavior (my parents, especially my Dad, had a mature attitude about sex and sex education).
Today, I'm a university student, and I've nearly graduated with Bachelor's of Science in Psychology with a minor in Economics. I also enjoy the privilege of being an undergraduate Laurels scholar. If anything, having access to a computer with the internet as a young child helped rather than hampered my development. I know that I came out a lot better than the kids who spent most of their childhood watching television. Do you think that if you wait until your daughter is 10 or 12 to introduce her to the internet and the use of a computer that she will be very comfortable using one as a teenager? Do you think she will even be interested in using it and learning how to do things like make websites? Personally I think you are giving your daughter a severe disadvantage in life by attempting to shelter her from "screen time." Let's face it, the modern world is filled with screens. When I go to school, sometimes we have class in the computer lab. The professor almost always has access to a classroom computer and a video overhead which are connected to a digital projector. When I do homework, I'm doing it on a computer. When I go to work at my school's Distance Learning Center to do video production, or convert projector reel films to DVD format, I use all kinds of screens and computers. When I am at home and I want to blow off steam, I play videogames on my computer or watch movies and sitcoms on websites like hulu.com. Basically, as a responsible adult and college student, almost ALL of my time is spent in front of a screen. It's going to be the same or worse for your daughter, as she comes from a generation even younger than mine. Please, for her sake, don't wait too long to teach her how to use the internet. It is a wonderful learning device and it is going to be a huge part of her life.
This is probably just a correlation; students who take notes are more likely to be paying attention than students who don't take notes. That doesn't mean that every student who doesn't take notes isn't paying attention.
As a student and an active listener who rarely takes notes (but always studies for exams), I'm willing to bet that whether or not a student asks questions or makes comments during a lecture is a better predictor of performance than whether or not they are writing down every word that comes out of your mouth like automatons. I am frequently shocked to see many of my fellow students writing down EVERYTHING a professor says, even the most obvious or trivial information, and even if it is already covered verbatim in the textbook or lecture notes.
What's sad is that some people might actually think those would be good jobs and that the economy would be stimulated. Everyone with even a weakling's grasp on Economics is cringing right about now.
Just because what we're studying is difficult to measure or interpret doesn't mean that it isn't science. Psychology, especially behaviorism, is quite scientifically robust.
So you've deduced that every psychologist in the world is a Freudian pseudo-scientist obsessed with fixations and dream interpretations. Congratulations, you're a douchebag who knows nothing about psychology or what psychologists do.
Criticizing Freud is picking some pretty low-hanging fruit. Why don't you formulate an argument which postulates that B.F. Skinner wasn't a scientist and then get back to us. Good luck.
Didn't you see "Minority Report?"
So what does that make Econometrics?
I type e-mails in my living room on my digital projector ... but only sometimes because I don't like to burn out the bulb for trivial stuff that I could do on my LCD monitor. Does that count?
If you had read the article, you'd notice that the FBI have been working on this particular case since 2007. The story about Mueller nearly falling for a phishing scam is from 2009. I don't think the two events have anything to do with each other.