There's no way to disprove the hypothesis that "the fittest species survive with higher frequency in the next generation". Nor an ante hoc way to calculate fitness, etc. etc. etc.
Yeah man, good point, good point. Another misconception people throw around is that 30 angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's actually 20, tops. That's what the serious, RATIONAL theologains believe. Definitely merits more research though.
If the effect of this "filter that is no censorship" is merely cosmetic, then why was Google forced to include it or face being banned from operating in China?
It has to do with Chinese culture, which emphasizes "saving face". (If you're ever doing business in China, never call out a Chinese person on a mistake in front of others. I know, you probably wouldn't do that in the West, but that applies triple in China.) In the Tianenman Square prosecutions, those who contributed the most and did the most damage got off the easiest because they played the game of mutual criticism and admitted what they did was wrong. In contrast, minor participants got stiff penalties merely for refusing to admit what they did was wrong.
Long story short, even if officials in the Chinese government were willing to bow down to this pressure not to censor, or even considered censorship wrong, they definitely wouldn't want to reverse previous policy or look like they were bowing down to international pressure. That would make them look stupid.
Creating an appearance of rigid enforcement while knowing quite well that people are circumventing these restrictions is exactly what you would expect them to do.
And that's the biggest crock in the world. You *can't* administer an IQ test as a requirement for a job position, but it's legal and in fact encouraged to require a college degree, knowing full well that colleges administer an IQ test (SAT). And of the jobs that "require" a college degree, let's not kid ourselves -- very few actually need it. Whatever knowledge is needed can usually be gained elsewhere. It's just a way to cull the field of applicants.
No insurance company will insure a reactor in America. Why? It's like this. A nuclear plant could *easily* get an insurance company to back them $5 million or so for each person killed in a meltdown, plus containment costs and any feasible reconstruction. A lot more than most people get who are victims of torts. Except that if a meltdown does happen, the verdict won't be $5 million for each person killed + the rest. Nope. It'll be "How much you got?"
$5 million per life taken is insurable. "How much you got?" isn't.
Because jury verdicts depend on the assets of liable party and not the actual damage done, no one will insure it because it simply can't be predicted. And once an insurance company gets involve *their* entire assets will be attacked too. So it has nothing to do with risk of meltdown, but the legal system.
It's true that European plants must be insured, but this is mostly a facade too. They try to hide it through a private insurer, but in reality, it would be backed by the government, just like it would be in America, and the government would pledge indefinite relief to anyone affected by a meltdown.
Huh? You're not making any sense whatsoever. You seem to be basing a lot of what you're saying on the assumption that I'm avoiding or otherwise suppressing your post. I guess that's because a lot of people assign mod penalties to those on their foes list. Well, I don't. Which means it is utterly false that I "don't want to read something [I] disagree with". Now, normally, I chalk that up as "just another premature assumption" on your part, but in my post I quite clearly said "I wanted to flag you so I would know to expect futher inanity in the future."
Now, if I'm not going to *see* your posts any more, there's not a whole hell of a lot of inanity I need to remind myself about seeing from you, is there? I use my foes list to remind me who I have recognized as intellectually lazy, i.e., unwilling to accept logical conclusions that conflict with their prejudices. I will still see all your posts, in all their economics-ignorant inanity, and if I could post more often, I'd rhetorically ass-rape you even more than you already have been.
Last, I don't understand the comment about Ubuntu. I guess it was because I said "foes list" in that context instead of "freaks" list. I meant that I have so many freaks because of what I've said about Ubuntu.
And what's so important about you wanting to shoot pirates at dawn?
I believe it was because I saw your sig: "cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage" and it revealed a pitiful understanding of both the economics behind the issue and the reasons why people oppose the minimum wage. Even if it was in jest, I think it is indicative of a poor understanding of the issue, and I wanted to flag you so I would know to expect futher inanity in the future.
A minimum wage law does not say "you must hire this person. It must be at this wage." It says "if you ever hire someone, it has to be above this wage" and "if you're a worker, you can't accept offers below this wage". Whatever is holding wages up "enough to eat", it ain't the minimum wage. Employers just won't make the offer if it isn't worth their while. Do people see a wage gain after a minimum wage? Sure. Production processes involve a mix of labor and capital goods, and with the capital goods being sunk costs, it doesn't make sense to sack the now-overvalued worker, even if he is losing you money, because not to do so would lose even more money. I try to explain these basic concepts to people, and I never get a straight answer out of them. Pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs of this thread, which "scudsucker" refuses to answer, but instead make emotional diatribes:
Notice that he -- like pretty much everyone else I explain that to -- doesn't respond to the logic, but reverts to asserting his support for a goal we both agreed was good.
The best way to help workers of all kinds is to make it as easy to switch jobs as it is to switch supermarkets. This would be truly liberating, as the threat of layoffs or employer intimidation would have much less sting. (almost) Every regulation that mandates benefits makes employers more reluctant and thus introduces significant labor market rigidity, undermining this goal. That is why they are ultimately detrimental to the beloved workers. That is why conservatives and libertarians object to such laws, not to make people starve.
I'd love to discuss this more, but I'm limited to two posts/day (see below), so email me if you would like to say more.
By the way, is there a way to set it so you get notified when someone foes you? I need to keep track of this stuff too. Although it's pretty obvious that most of my extensive foes list is due to my Ubuntu experience.
What the hell aroud you talking about? Most of these "moron" muggers are trying to get money to feed their you know, families. Ever had to hold a starving baby? And they don't "attack" you. Most of them try to distract you while another takes it -- NON-VIOLENTLY. It's a NON-VIOLENT crime (unlike the invasion of Iraq). NOBODY gets hurt. Everything is insured. THERE ARE NO VICTIMS. It just inconveniences someone making six figures (or whose parents make six figures). We need to give these people a place to sleep and a decent meal, not arrest them.
You ever had to live off soup for months at a time? Then shut up.
I know of a scientist who wrote a proposal of how Venus could be (relatively) quickly terraformed. It was published by the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. See here.(Unzip and read as gifs.) And see Birch's other papers here.
Aw. Too bad. Guess the constitution "only" prohibits them from compelling individuals in the corporation from testifying against their interests. Wait, that's the same thing. Moron.
Are you black or something? Whatever fixed cost there is from delivering to ATMs, they have to recover from fees. You might as well say that because expensive factories can produce one more unit for pennies, that each unit should cost pennies. Wait, you probably are that stupid.
It's true that there are benefits as well to providing free things to customers. In some cases, they aren't sufficient. In those cases, they charge for an ATM. Get it? Maybe you should try thinking before you die in your Cadillac.
I also happen to think that charging people to get access to their own money is a bit rich
No, they're charging for the convenience of delivering it to you there instead of having to go to your regular bank. Do you have any fucking idea how much it costs to run an ATM? I have a friend who one time did security on a delivery to an ATM, and let's just say that it costs a pretty penny to deliver to one, plus you have to insure the money against theft. Don't want to pay at the ATM? Fine, they'll impute it out of the interest they pay your or pass it over into bank fees.
Wow!!! Property rights have a history behind them? The triplet from the DoI was based on Locke! WOW!!! I really fucking didn't know that! Thanks for telling me! Now, learn how to pronounce "historical" like a normal person, and you'll be well on your way to "not making an ass of yourself every time you fire off".
In both places, I was talking about the philosophical reason they continue to be supported, and why the distinction the other poster brought up wasn't a very sharp one. Yes, patents encourage people to share knowledge -- they also encourage people to come up with it in the first place. Get it now? No, you're going to make another pseudo-intellectual know-it-all comment (hopefully not confusing Smith and Locke this time!) and feel smart for doing so. Please, stick to gamefaqs.com where you actually have something worthwhile to say.
What "precaution" did the instructions not say to do?
They didn't warn about the dangers of putting GRUB on the MBR, they didn't say to test install on a *separate fucking computer* first, they didn't say to download a Live CD in addition to the install CD, and a lot more I can't recall of the top of my head. (The people on the forums bashed me for not doing these things, btw.)
Can you explain exactly what alternative to GRUB will allow dual-boot and is less dangerous?
No, but I'll do you one better. It should say "GRUB is recommended, but do not install to master boot record until you are sure it works". Then I would have put grub only on the hard drive with Ubuntu, and I wouldn't be locked out of both OS's.
How to make it better? Test the fucking bootloader a little more, given its location along a critical path? Give accurate error message? (It complained of a hard drive read error despite repeated testing showing the hard drive was fine, before and after.) It could write install instructions that include all the advice I only got after being locked out of both OS's and finding another computer I could ask for help on.
Here's my brutal honesty about the "free software" philosophy. I thought, in the case of Ubuntu, it would mean they would welcome new users, not ignore their the specifics of their question, or otherwise ignore direct question, insult new users by asking why they didn't take a precaution they could not have known to take, and generally give poor instructions and recommendations for installation (like telling you to put GRUB on your master boot record for dual boot, never mind that you're locked out of both OS's if it has the slightest error in running). That's not very welcoming.
Every time I bring up my experience with "easy to use" Ubuntu, no matter how I say it, I get modded down, but I will gladly do it until I get modded off Slashdot if it finally gets the message across - DESIGN THE SOFTWARE WITH THE NEW-TO-LINUX USER IN MIND.
Note patents are not a way to reward those who invent things. They are a way to distribute information about an invention to stimulate creativity.
Good point. Also, property rights aren't a way to reward those who produce and bring things to market. They are a way to distribute goods and stimulate production.
No one has *ever* thought of using a saturator before! Capping music's volume is *such* a novel idea, let's get them a patent. Get them a fucking patent! I mean, normally, I'm against patents, but we gotta have some kind of way to reward those with truly novel inventions. Where would we be if these guys hadn't thought of limiting the music's volume? We're be throwing rocks at each other, I tell you!
Trademark laws exist to protect the consumer, not the producer.
Which means that it should only be the consumer who has standing to sue for infringement, and it is not the consumers here who are complaining that they thought they got DC/Marvel "Superheroes".
Oh great, another one of the "Shooting to protect your life is AOK, but not property... that's different" morons. So, I guess you think no bank or art museum guard should ever carry a gun, because of course there would be no reason to use it. Thieves just want *stuff*, right? No one's hurt or anything.
Taking property is taking the portion of the victims life needed to obtain it. Taking life is taking the portion of the victim's life that hasn't happened yet. Distinguishing those... well, that takes a liberal.
So let me get this straight- you want us to cut government funding from basic research, which has been the norm for the last half century at least, and your argument for why it will be OK rests on telling us we will go back go the rate of scientific advance during the enlightenment. I for one prefer the rate of scientific and medical progress we experienced from 1950-2006 rather than from 1750-1806.
Ah, gotta love that kind of reasoning, "we've always done it this way, so it's the only way it can be done, and if you oppose doing it this way, you must want it to fail."
And because goods have always been transported by train, using an automobile...
you know, fuck it. I don't even see the point of dignifying posts like yours. Let me just give a bit of advice: those who don't know their opponent's arguments, don't really understand their own.
I was the one risking karma loss. And his "explanation" totally missed the point of what I was asking, and in a really bone-headed way that can't be explained by mere error.
Stop acting like one and give us an example. "Private Companies" your own words remember?
I listed that as one possibility, sure. You're the one saying, "well, private research doesn't really count as private because it doesn't *feel* private". How the fuck can I even have a dialogue with you if you're going use loose, ambiguous terms that middle management wouldn't tolerate?
Maybe there are worthy examples I don't know of or am not remembering right now. I don't exclude that possibility, but until now you have given us nothing but "straw".
I gave you three, and you dismissed them by moving the goalposts. Not how logic works, I'm afraid.
You made the claim, you have the burden of proof.
I *responded* to claims. Your claim is that only the government is capable of "basic research", and private organizations can't do that. (And you get to define "basic research" and "private" specficially to exclude anything that might cast doubt on your theory, of course.) You're proposing a government policy. Burden's on you, kid.
I love how people retreat to shifting burdens when they're losing.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no way to disprove the hypothesis that "the fittest species survive with higher frequency in the next generation". Nor an ante hoc way to calculate fitness, etc. etc. etc.
Yeah man, good point, good point. Another misconception people throw around is that 30 angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's actually 20, tops. That's what the serious, RATIONAL theologains believe. Definitely merits more research though.
If the effect of this "filter that is no censorship" is merely cosmetic, then why was Google forced to include it or face being banned from operating in China?
It has to do with Chinese culture, which emphasizes "saving face". (If you're ever doing business in China, never call out a Chinese person on a mistake in front of others. I know, you probably wouldn't do that in the West, but that applies triple in China.) In the Tianenman Square prosecutions, those who contributed the most and did the most damage got off the easiest because they played the game of mutual criticism and admitted what they did was wrong. In contrast, minor participants got stiff penalties merely for refusing to admit what they did was wrong.
Long story short, even if officials in the Chinese government were willing to bow down to this pressure not to censor, or even considered censorship wrong, they definitely wouldn't want to reverse previous policy or look like they were bowing down to international pressure. That would make them look stupid.
Creating an appearance of rigid enforcement while knowing quite well that people are circumventing these restrictions is exactly what you would expect them to do.
Actually *IQ* tests for employment are illegal.
And that's the biggest crock in the world. You *can't* administer an IQ test as a requirement for a job position, but it's legal and in fact encouraged to require a college degree, knowing full well that colleges administer an IQ test (SAT). And of the jobs that "require" a college degree, let's not kid ourselves -- very few actually need it. Whatever knowledge is needed can usually be gained elsewhere. It's just a way to cull the field of applicants.
No insurance company will insure a reactor in America. Why? It's like this. A nuclear plant could *easily* get an insurance company to back them $5 million or so for each person killed in a meltdown, plus containment costs and any feasible reconstruction. A lot more than most people get who are victims of torts. Except that if a meltdown does happen, the verdict won't be $5 million for each person killed + the rest. Nope. It'll be "How much you got?"
$5 million per life taken is insurable. "How much you got?" isn't.
Because jury verdicts depend on the assets of liable party and not the actual damage done, no one will insure it because it simply can't be predicted. And once an insurance company gets involve *their* entire assets will be attacked too. So it has nothing to do with risk of meltdown, but the legal system.
It's true that European plants must be insured, but this is mostly a facade too. They try to hide it through a private insurer, but in reality, it would be backed by the government, just like it would be in America, and the government would pledge indefinite relief to anyone affected by a meltdown.
Huh? You're not making any sense whatsoever. You seem to be basing a lot of what you're saying on the assumption that I'm avoiding or otherwise suppressing your post. I guess that's because a lot of people assign mod penalties to those on their foes list. Well, I don't. Which means it is utterly false that I "don't want to read something [I] disagree with". Now, normally, I chalk that up as "just another premature assumption" on your part, but in my post I quite clearly said "I wanted to flag you so I would know to expect futher inanity in the future."
Now, if I'm not going to *see* your posts any more, there's not a whole hell of a lot of inanity I need to remind myself about seeing from you, is there? I use my foes list to remind me who I have recognized as intellectually lazy, i.e., unwilling to accept logical conclusions that conflict with their prejudices. I will still see all your posts, in all their economics-ignorant inanity, and if I could post more often, I'd rhetorically ass-rape you even more than you already have been.
Last, I don't understand the comment about Ubuntu. I guess it was because I said "foes list" in that context instead of "freaks" list. I meant that I have so many freaks because of what I've said about Ubuntu.
And what's so important about you wanting to shoot pirates at dawn?
I believe it was because I saw your sig: "cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage" and it revealed a pitiful understanding of both the economics behind the issue and the reasons why people oppose the minimum wage. Even if it was in jest, I think it is indicative of a poor understanding of the issue, and I wanted to flag you so I would know to expect futher inanity in the future.
= 14898736
A minimum wage law does not say "you must hire this person. It must be at this wage." It says "if you ever hire someone, it has to be above this wage" and "if you're a worker, you can't accept offers below this wage". Whatever is holding wages up "enough to eat", it ain't the minimum wage. Employers just won't make the offer if it isn't worth their while. Do people see a wage gain after a minimum wage? Sure. Production processes involve a mix of labor and capital goods, and with the capital goods being sunk costs, it doesn't make sense to sack the now-overvalued worker, even if he is losing you money, because not to do so would lose even more money. I try to explain these basic concepts to people, and I never get a straight answer out of them. Pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs of this thread, which "scudsucker" refuses to answer, but instead make emotional diatribes:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=179912&cid
Notice that he -- like pretty much everyone else I explain that to -- doesn't respond to the logic, but reverts to asserting his support for a goal we both agreed was good.
The best way to help workers of all kinds is to make it as easy to switch jobs as it is to switch supermarkets. This would be truly liberating, as the threat of layoffs or employer intimidation would have much less sting. (almost) Every regulation that mandates benefits makes employers more reluctant and thus introduces significant labor market rigidity, undermining this goal. That is why they are ultimately detrimental to the beloved workers. That is why conservatives and libertarians object to such laws, not to make people starve.
I'd love to discuss this more, but I'm limited to two posts/day (see below), so email me if you would like to say more.
By the way, is there a way to set it so you get notified when someone foes you? I need to keep track of this stuff too. Although it's pretty obvious that most of my extensive foes list is due to my Ubuntu experience.
What the hell aroud you talking about? Most of these "moron" muggers are trying to get money to feed their you know, families. Ever had to hold a starving baby? And they don't "attack" you. Most of them try to distract you while another takes it -- NON-VIOLENTLY. It's a NON-VIOLENT crime (unlike the invasion of Iraq). NOBODY gets hurt. Everything is insured. THERE ARE NO VICTIMS. It just inconveniences someone making six figures (or whose parents make six figures). We need to give these people a place to sleep and a decent meal, not arrest them.
You ever had to live off soup for months at a time? Then shut up.
I know of a scientist who wrote a proposal of how Venus could be (relatively) quickly terraformed. It was published by the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. See here.(Unzip and read as gifs.) And see Birch's other papers here.
Aw. Too bad. Guess the constitution "only" prohibits them from compelling individuals in the corporation from testifying against their interests. Wait, that's the same thing. Moron.
instead of burdening Slashdot with your silly questions about which full scholarship program to what super hot program you should accept?
Are you black or something? Whatever fixed cost there is from delivering to ATMs, they have to recover from fees. You might as well say that because expensive factories can produce one more unit for pennies, that each unit should cost pennies. Wait, you probably are that stupid.
It's true that there are benefits as well to providing free things to customers. In some cases, they aren't sufficient. In those cases, they charge for an ATM. Get it? Maybe you should try thinking before you die in your Cadillac.
I also happen to think that charging people to get access to their own money is a bit rich
No, they're charging for the convenience of delivering it to you there instead of having to go to your regular bank. Do you have any fucking idea how much it costs to run an ATM? I have a friend who one time did security on a delivery to an ATM, and let's just say that it costs a pretty penny to deliver to one, plus you have to insure the money against theft. Don't want to pay at the ATM? Fine, they'll impute it out of the interest they pay your or pass it over into bank fees.
Wow!!! Property rights have a history behind them? The triplet from the DoI was based on Locke! WOW!!! I really fucking didn't know that! Thanks for telling me! Now, learn how to pronounce "historical" like a normal person, and you'll be well on your way to "not making an ass of yourself every time you fire off".
In both places, I was talking about the philosophical reason they continue to be supported, and why the distinction the other poster brought up wasn't a very sharp one. Yes, patents encourage people to share knowledge -- they also encourage people to come up with it in the first place. Get it now? No, you're going to make another pseudo-intellectual know-it-all comment (hopefully not confusing Smith and Locke this time!) and feel smart for doing so. Please, stick to gamefaqs.com where you actually have something worthwhile to say.
What "precaution" did the instructions not say to do?
They didn't warn about the dangers of putting GRUB on the MBR, they didn't say to test install on a *separate fucking computer* first, they didn't say to download a Live CD in addition to the install CD, and a lot more I can't recall of the top of my head. (The people on the forums bashed me for not doing these things, btw.)
Can you explain exactly what alternative to GRUB will allow dual-boot and is less dangerous?
No, but I'll do you one better. It should say "GRUB is recommended, but do not install to master boot record until you are sure it works". Then I would have put grub only on the hard drive with Ubuntu, and I wouldn't be locked out of both OS's.
How to make it better? Test the fucking bootloader a little more, given its location along a critical path? Give accurate error message? (It complained of a hard drive read error despite repeated testing showing the hard drive was fine, before and after.) It could write install instructions that include all the advice I only got after being locked out of both OS's and finding another computer I could ask for help on.
Basic, basic software design, in other words.
Here's my brutal honesty about the "free software" philosophy. I thought, in the case of Ubuntu, it would mean they would welcome new users, not ignore their the specifics of their question, or otherwise ignore direct question, insult new users by asking why they didn't take a precaution they could not have known to take, and generally give poor instructions and recommendations for installation (like telling you to put GRUB on your master boot record for dual boot, never mind that you're locked out of both OS's if it has the slightest error in running). That's not very welcoming.
Every time I bring up my experience with "easy to use" Ubuntu, no matter how I say it, I get modded down, but I will gladly do it until I get modded off Slashdot if it finally gets the message across - DESIGN THE SOFTWARE WITH THE NEW-TO-LINUX USER IN MIND.
Note patents are not a way to reward those who invent things. They are a way to distribute information about an invention to stimulate creativity.
Good point. Also, property rights aren't a way to reward those who produce and bring things to market. They are a way to distribute goods and stimulate production.
SAME. FUCKING. DIFFERENCE.
No one has *ever* thought of using a saturator before! Capping music's volume is *such* a novel idea, let's get them a patent. Get them a fucking patent! I mean, normally, I'm against patents, but we gotta have some kind of way to reward those with truly novel inventions. Where would we be if these guys hadn't thought of limiting the music's volume? We're be throwing rocks at each other, I tell you!
Trademark laws exist to protect the consumer, not the producer.
Which means that it should only be the consumer who has standing to sue for infringement, and it is not the consumers here who are complaining that they thought they got DC/Marvel "Superheroes".
Oh great, another one of the "Shooting to protect your life is AOK, but not property... that's different" morons. So, I guess you think no bank or art museum guard should ever carry a gun, because of course there would be no reason to use it. Thieves just want *stuff*, right? No one's hurt or anything.
... well, that takes a liberal.
Taking property is taking the portion of the victims life needed to obtain it. Taking life is taking the portion of the victim's life that hasn't happened yet. Distinguishing those
but the majority of online porn isn't b&w.
Some of it is bbw. Does that count? Is that kind of the same thing?
So let me get this straight- you want us to cut government funding from basic research, which has been the norm for the last half century at least, and your argument for why it will be OK rests on telling us we will go back go the rate of scientific advance during the enlightenment. I for one prefer the rate of scientific and medical progress we experienced from 1950-2006 rather than from 1750-1806.
Ah, gotta love that kind of reasoning, "we've always done it this way, so it's the only way it can be done, and if you oppose doing it this way, you must want it to fail."
And because goods have always been transported by train, using an automobile...
you know, fuck it. I don't even see the point of dignifying posts like yours. Let me just give a bit of advice: those who don't know their opponent's arguments, don't really understand their own.
Darkie:
I was the one risking karma loss. And his "explanation" totally missed the point of what I was asking, and in a really bone-headed way that can't be explained by mere error.
Stop acting like one and give us an example. "Private Companies" your own words remember?
I listed that as one possibility, sure. You're the one saying, "well, private research doesn't really count as private because it doesn't *feel* private". How the fuck can I even have a dialogue with you if you're going use loose, ambiguous terms that middle management wouldn't tolerate?
Maybe there are worthy examples I don't know of or am not remembering right now. I don't exclude that possibility, but until now you have given us nothing but "straw".
I gave you three, and you dismissed them by moving the goalposts. Not how logic works, I'm afraid.
You made the claim, you have the burden of proof.
I *responded* to claims. Your claim is that only the government is capable of "basic research", and private organizations can't do that. (And you get to define "basic research" and "private" specficially to exclude anything that might cast doubt on your theory, of course.) You're proposing a government policy. Burden's on you, kid.
I love how people retreat to shifting burdens when they're losing.
And ... why the fuck again would someone want to insert arbitrary line breaks like that?