What a bunch of idiots.
Three year olds don't have strong cognitive responses to language. Don't you remember being three?
I remember being in the womb (especially when the water broke, hard to forget that one). Talk about a different mode of thought.
As long as people think that the way they think is the only way to think, they'll never really figure anything out, beyond social rote.
I sometimes think that an over-reliance on success at the modeling stage can lead to things like unusable software. I'm currently working with a product that theoretically replaces me. but because it can't break its own rules, it ends up coming short in real-world applications, and here I am not only operating a product that is too sophisticated for the average user, but that is also intrinsically incapable of doing some very simple things that are only called for about 2% of the time. but when you need em, you need em. and those last 2% can make the difference between success and failure.
but that doesn't make the product a failure; it's unquestionably good at what it does do. the failure lies on the part of users/planners/managers who mistake power and complexity for universality.
Have to laugh because I was just thinking about this stuff this morning..
I've been ripped off a lot. Sometimes I've later met the folks that ripped me off, and when they realize who I am they get kinda quiet.
But it's ok, because I'm still vastly more inventive then they are. Ideas are just building blocks, you make one, then you stand on it and make another that goes on top, etc. In that sense, when I get ripped off and somebody takes the idea to market, they just built a platform for me to continue to build on, training customers and creating workflows that I can easily leverage on to the next thing.
Sure, that doesn't work that way every time.. but it works often enough.
Now, if I wanted to own the planet, it would annoy me. But I don't, and the people that do can't seem to figure out how to do it anyway, so it's all good.
Having power over another gives the other opportunities for power as well.
For instance, if I have some money, and you find out about it, you may want to get it from me. You may try to sell me something, or to steal it. But if I am aware that you desire my money, I can choose to or refrain from buying your product. And in the act of stealing, you would make yourself vulnerable to pursuit or prosecution by me.
For every move, there is a counter-move. I think people may try to rely on privacy as an implicit or explicit right to reduce the attention they need to apply to protect themselves from threats and challenges, but that ultimately creates vulnerabilities, at best deferring the appropriate attention.
Knowledge is indeed power. As Solove writes, privacy is a poorly identified concept; yet it exists. Solove's analysis seems to me to be very cursory (if verbose). Privacy may arise passively, inasmuch as it is increasingly difficult to attend to the detail information of a large population (each of whose members constantly generate more and more information). A degree of privacy arises intrinsically over time, even in fairly small populations.
I found Solove's nominal arguments against "nothing to hide" to be ultimately unpersuasive; he claims it "has nothing to say", but he explicitly states that pro privacy arguments are muddled and pointless in their own way.
isn't the premise of science that it is supposed to be effective regardless of belief?
i find it strange that so many self-defined scientists ended up arguing over what is appropriate to believe in, instead of whether belief is appropriate at all.
in the process, they also seem to forget that belief is mutable. this fact goes against the belief of many believers, and one can't help but be suspicious that those who fail to consider it may be believers themselves.
"everybody believes in something" is a defense that believers commonly call upon, but this only indicates that they haven't met (or don't believe in) any actual scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
"I can insert it, and then it resets the card, and now I'm able to vote again,"
Didn't he just overwrite his previous vote? "Vote again" is not necessarily the same as "cast two votes".
Not to say there aren't problems, there certainly are, but there is a lot of lame in this article. Not helpful.
What a bunch of idiots. Three year olds don't have strong cognitive responses to language. Don't you remember being three? I remember being in the womb (especially when the water broke, hard to forget that one). Talk about a different mode of thought. As long as people think that the way they think is the only way to think, they'll never really figure anything out, beyond social rote.
I sometimes think that an over-reliance on success at the modeling stage can lead to things like unusable software. I'm currently working with a product that theoretically replaces me. but because it can't break its own rules, it ends up coming short in real-world applications, and here I am not only operating a product that is too sophisticated for the average user, but that is also intrinsically incapable of doing some very simple things that are only called for about 2% of the time. but when you need em, you need em. and those last 2% can make the difference between success and failure. but that doesn't make the product a failure; it's unquestionably good at what it does do. the failure lies on the part of users/planners/managers who mistake power and complexity for universality.
Have to laugh because I was just thinking about this stuff this morning.. I've been ripped off a lot. Sometimes I've later met the folks that ripped me off, and when they realize who I am they get kinda quiet. But it's ok, because I'm still vastly more inventive then they are. Ideas are just building blocks, you make one, then you stand on it and make another that goes on top, etc. In that sense, when I get ripped off and somebody takes the idea to market, they just built a platform for me to continue to build on, training customers and creating workflows that I can easily leverage on to the next thing. Sure, that doesn't work that way every time.. but it works often enough. Now, if I wanted to own the planet, it would annoy me. But I don't, and the people that do can't seem to figure out how to do it anyway, so it's all good.
Having power over another gives the other opportunities for power as well. For instance, if I have some money, and you find out about it, you may want to get it from me. You may try to sell me something, or to steal it. But if I am aware that you desire my money, I can choose to or refrain from buying your product. And in the act of stealing, you would make yourself vulnerable to pursuit or prosecution by me. For every move, there is a counter-move. I think people may try to rely on privacy as an implicit or explicit right to reduce the attention they need to apply to protect themselves from threats and challenges, but that ultimately creates vulnerabilities, at best deferring the appropriate attention. Knowledge is indeed power. As Solove writes, privacy is a poorly identified concept; yet it exists. Solove's analysis seems to me to be very cursory (if verbose). Privacy may arise passively, inasmuch as it is increasingly difficult to attend to the detail information of a large population (each of whose members constantly generate more and more information). A degree of privacy arises intrinsically over time, even in fairly small populations. I found Solove's nominal arguments against "nothing to hide" to be ultimately unpersuasive; he claims it "has nothing to say", but he explicitly states that pro privacy arguments are muddled and pointless in their own way.
isn't the premise of science that it is supposed to be effective regardless of belief? i find it strange that so many self-defined scientists ended up arguing over what is appropriate to believe in, instead of whether belief is appropriate at all. in the process, they also seem to forget that belief is mutable. this fact goes against the belief of many believers, and one can't help but be suspicious that those who fail to consider it may be believers themselves. "everybody believes in something" is a defense that believers commonly call upon, but this only indicates that they haven't met (or don't believe in) any actual scientists.