Totally creepy and wasteful, I couldn't believe it.
Marketing usually is.
On the other hand... People love their singing boxes.
And you got to admit - it got you talking about it.
Just like the talking packaging of the future will talk to you. Hey! People love when Siri does it!
Just think of the joy of THAT from every shelve.
And of people greeting their detergents and talking to them on their way to register.
Although... they may express FOR you.
Like that box of condoms humming "Get Lucky" in your pocket all the time during your ride home.
because
Think milk cartons. That sing joyful tunes and jingles when you open your fridge.
Packaging that remembers you - wherever you are.
Which will give you your very own personal discount cause it knows that your milk carton at home is only just opened, but it knows from your profile that you like a bargain.
Products will express you when you buy them, and sadness when you don't.
They will be your friends. They will know your favorite things.
They will love you like you were never loved by anyone else.
Your dog will be jealous. Your cat will try to kill them.
Actually, that sounds EXACTLY like an internet tough guy, hiding behind perceived immunity of the internet, throwing threats and insults.
To which one should respond in kind and/or worse, ignore them, report them to the admins/authority, post a video of themselves shooting at a target or post an address of one's lawyer.
Sure... all those responses require some action and further responsibility for those actions, but so does any other way or form of protecting one's existence or rights.
I mean... Police can't be watching only one person all the time, checking if someone has made any threats or tried to hurt them.
It's very hard to do that for people who are heads of states.
SOME action (and responsibility for those actions) on one's part IS required.
Yes. Lets ask children if they want to be treated like adults, and trust them to act like adults if they answer in the affirmative.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with that idea.
I've known 17-year-old "children" who were more "adult" than some 40-50-year-old adults I knew at the time.
And we DO practice it.
Only, it's mostly archaic, traditional and uni-directional OR it is a matter arising from legal dispute.
Instead of being something like a social and legal contract that you can both accept and sign and be treated by the society as an adult.
And have those rights taken away or suspended without going through something like being sent to jail.
I'm guessing that the problem is that we'd need some kind of a test... and it's no longer enough just to be able to kill a buffalo or read from a book.
So... we just keep assuming that eventually all people simply become adults on their 18th birthday or whenever.
I assume you have never had an Intro to Stats class. If you have, you didn't deserve to pass it. I suggest you look up a difference between two means test and categorical variables in regression.
I'm assuming here that you misunderstood this part. Though you quoted the entire post. Slashdot Beta?
Also, East-West bias can be noted in the stats measured and stats assumed.
No regression calculation was reported for West German family, while t-test values were always fixed (i.e. assumed) for East Germans and always calculated for West Germans.
And there's that thing of "East German family background" being marked with a 0 and "West German family background" being marked with a 1.
Someone seems to like West Germans better.
I am not talking about a single issue nor am I conflating their t-tests with their probit regressions.
I'm talking about several separate cases in the survey and in the paper where the language and variables used indicate either a pro-West or anti-East bias.
Which is basically code for "NOT-socialist" in this case, as seen below.
By the end of the paper they simply decide that doing calculations for "West German family" variable isn't needed.
"Meh, we found nothing there.
But look! We got this one point in a very small cherry picked sample that PROVES East Germans are cheaters!"
Nor am I misunderstanding surveying for dichotomous, binary, values.
I'm pointing out that the way the values are set up (i.e. a West German family which is a positive 1 and a NOT West German family - a 0) indicates a pro-West bias.
Which alone, doesn't mean much. But when you take in account the the rest of the paper...
Stuff like this:
As an interaction
term of age and family background is not informative in a non-linear model like Probit
we decided to investigate the exposure to socialism by
examining these distinct age cohorts separately.5 In line with the theory that exposure to
socialism impacts dishonesty, differences in cheating are greater in older cohorts. While East
German subjects born after socialism are 19 percent more likely to report the high side of the
die than their West German counterparts, subjects who lived less than 10 years in socialism
were 28 percent more likely, and subjects who lived for 20 years or more in socialism are 65
percent more likely.
I.e. "Because we can't find any proof for our original hypothesis, here's another cherry picked proof for an unrelated hypothesis - never mind the ignoratio elenchi taking place.
Wasn't it obvious we were gunning for a "proof" that socialism promotes cheating and not that a more general definition of East or West German family heritage does?
Why not just jump on another hypothesis as if we were proving that all the time, cause we can't find enough data to back up our claims for the original hypothesis? How about that?"
They had to get the sample down to 41 people (from a sample of 110, from a population of 259 - note how they only had 90 East Germans a table ago) in order to get ANY significant result regarding the age - cause that's what they are proving now.
Literally, that's the ONLY SIGNIFICANT RESULT IN THEIR ENTIRE REGRESSION CALCULATION.
That AGE of the subject matters and NOT his/her family heritage they've been talking about the whole time.
AND there is NO (zero, zip, nada, keine...) data presented for West Germans in that same period.
Apparently, there were no West Germans in 1970s but there were at least 41 East Germans.
That's cherry picking and replacing of the original argument with a different one, which though it sounds similar is ultimately irrelevant to the original hypothesis.
Plus they are misrepresenting results for other marginal effects of their probit regression - quoting them THOUGH they are not statistically significant for the p-value they've set up.
The link to the paper is in the summary. Go look it up.
But thanks for showing it.
Study was done on 259 Germans.
Out of which "90 subjects reported having an East German family background and 98 subjects having a West German family background."
Too small a sample size to be of any use? Indeed.
They are way out in the "our numbers mean diddly-squat" territory, as their margins of error are 7.82% (WGFB) and 8.36% (EGFB).
http://www.raosoft.com/samples...
I.e. when they report 9% and 19% average cheating that's actually 9 +/- 7.82% and 19 +/- 8.36%.
It could just as well be that WGFB are cheating 16% of the time while EGFB are cheating only 11% of the time.
Oh damn! Now it means that "because democracy, stupid", levels of interpersonal trust are lowered in the west.
Also...
They all rolled the dice only 40 times. A fair dice should give an average mean of 3.5.
They report average mean for "East German family background" (90 people) to be 3.83.
For "West German family background" (98 people) they report an average mean of 3.68.
But when you sample those same Germans whether they CONSIDER THEMSELVES East, West or just Germans - simply Germans (141 people) have an average mean of 3.70 while East/West Germans (73 people) have an average of 3.83.
Note how, smaller the sample the more extreme the result gets? That's because the overall sample size is too small.
A couple of people misreporting the results could be throwing the whole thing off.
AND they have a really strange sample of "German family heritage" (37 people), whatever that should mean as East-West was set as a 0-1 choice, who are practically not cheating at all, giving the average of 3.57.
While "others" (i.e. immigrants) cheat the most. 3.85. And yes, they are the smallest sample of only 30 people.
On the other hand... the incentive to cheat was simply not there.
At best, rolling a 6 all the time (i.e. cheating 100%), they'd get 6 Euros in the end. A cup of coffee costs about 4.2 Euros.
So people were supposedly cheating in order to get between 0.07 and 0.35 Euros?
After agreeing to participate, each subject received an envelope with six single 1 EUR coins,
the maximal possible payout on the die task we used to measure cheating. Subjects were then
asked to throw a physical die 40 times....
The payout that subjects ultimately received was determined by selecting one of their
rolls at random, by having the experimenter draw a number from 1 to 40 out of an envelope.
Subjects earned 1 EUR for each dot on this particular roll. If subjects were completely honest,
they would be expected to report deciding on the high side of the die in 50 percent of cases,
and the expected value of the average payout would be 3.50 EUR.
But there was plenty room for false positives as they used physical dice they ASSUMED were fair.
When IRL a dice shorter by 3% on one side gives 6% more results on that side.
And low quality, toy store bought, dice are even worse.
Also, East-West bias can be noted in the stats measured and stats assumed.
No regression calculation was reported for West German family, while t-test values were always fixed (i.e. assumed) for East Germans and always calculated for West Germans.
And there's that thing of "East German family background" being marked with a 0 and "West German family background" being marked with a 1.
Someone seems to like West Germans better.
It ain't "loss of vision". There is no vision to lose. They don't see anything and drive around using instruments and maps.
Also, "fatal scenarios" under water involve being crushed by pressure or drowning, while "fatal scenarios" in the air involve crashing and burning instantly.
Not really much of a difference, but at least it is quicker. Panic beforehand being about the same.
Besides... the point, AGAIN, is not about what happens to the passengers or the pilots.
It's that lovely radioactive propulsion and cargo in the water tubes and how everyone is OK with that being chauffeured around in a tube with no windows.
Wow... You really got your head so far up your ass that you REPEAT the same straw men you just got pointed out and called on? While adding some more...
So it's no longer just putting numbers in my mouth, ranting about irrelevant trivia and ignoring the points of conversation, it's distorting my words too...
I'm talking about airplanes the size of an airplane this system was designed for.
I.e. It's an AIRBUS.
By the way, you first claimed you were talking about an Airbus, now you say you were talking about a 747. You do realize that Boeing makes the 747 and not Airbus, right?
That... that makes no sense. It's too simple to pretend that you missed the meaning.
And you can't be able to spell words like "talking" and not be able to comprehend 4- and 2-letter words like "size", "of" and "an".
It's too lame to be a troll...
So you ARE insane!
Words get read but don't register properly cause you live in a delusional state of comprehension of the world around you.
Phew! Glad we got that out of the way.
I do wonder if you're actually allowed to fly planes, or is that just your delusion too?
I'm talking about airplanes the size of an airplane this system was designed for.
I.e. It's an AIRBUS.
While you rant on about "single engine GA aircraft", "airport departure" and ILS and VOR conditions under which you WON'T attempt landing - though I clearly talk about LANDING AN AIRPLANE THE SIZE OF A 747.
You're straw-mening.
I say:
A 747 lands at 172-207 mph. That's about 276-333 kph. Or 76-92 meters per second.
Meaning that they need AT LEAST 100 meters of visibility in order to see the ground 1 second before touchdown.
To which you reply:
There is no "1 second" rule. And your 100m == 1 second puts the aircraft at 194 knots. That's faster than landing speed. That's more than twice what a single engine GA aircraft will be going.
So take your pick.
You are either an idiot who thinks that 747 is a "single engine GA aircraft", landing is same as taking off, and the process of landing is the same as NOT landing, and who has difficulty reading or remembering numbers (note the speeds listed and the speed that you claim I listed)...
OR you are trying to push your limited experience in one field as an appeal to authority argument against logic by setting up a straw man or few.
Which makes you a liar and an asshole.
All your "I fly air-o-plains" talk means squat. But nice of you to share that.
I could never on my own present so adequately how fundamentally wrong your understanding of the situation being discussed really is.
Nor how self-righteous and smug you are about it.
They just want to eliminate paroles, abolish insanity and diminished capacity pleas, and trial kids as adults.
While privatizing prisons.
How did you put that?
NOT LIBERTARIAN to allow private organizations COMPLETE CONTROL of the freedom of an individual, whether that individual is a child or not.
Well shit... You better start informing those people that they are not real Scotsmen.
http://www.lp.org/the-libertar...
3. Get Tough on Real Crime
In part because of the diversion of resources to fight victimless crime (see above), real criminals increasingly escape punishment. As Figure 2. shows, the cost a criminal can expect to pay for committing a crime has declined for 20 years, while crime rates have steadily increased.
The Libertarian Party believes that individuals should be held responsible for their actions. This includes swift and certain punishment for those guilty of committing violence or fraud against others.
But today, criminal sentences seldom mean what they say. On average, a criminal will serve only 37% of any sentence imposed. As a result, 51% of all violent offenders are released from jail after serving two years or less, and 76% were released after serving four years or less.
When a Judge imposes a sentence, the criminal should serve that sentence. Parole and other forms of early release should be severely restricted. Virtually every study on the subject has shown that parolees have a high recidivism rate. For example, one 1987 study found that 69% of parolees were rearrested within six years of their release.
One deeply disturbing trend is the increasing tendency to excuse individuals from responsibility for the crimes they commit. From the "Twinkie defense" to the Menendez and Bobbitt trials, juries have been too willing to excuse a defendant's guilt. Insanity and diminished capacity defenses should be abolished or severely restricted. The insanity defense can be replaced by a plea of "guilty but mentally ill," which would enable the offender to receive medical help, but would still require him to serve the appropriate sentence for his crime. The use of alcohol or drugs should never constitute an excuse for criminal conduct.
The juvenile justice system should be radically revised to ensure that juveniles are held fully accountable for the crimes they commit. Juveniles commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. From 1982-1991, the number of juveniles arrested for murder or manslaughter increased by 93%. In 1990, individuals under the age of 21 were responsible for one-third of all murders. Yet, only 5% of violent juvenile offenders are tried as adults. In some states a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to serve a term past the age of 25 -- no matter how serious the offense. Juveniles who commit adult crimes should be tried as adults and pay adult penalties.
While scrapping welfare cause poor breed on it like rats. Eating, fucking and committing crimes all day.
5. Address the Root Causes of Crime
The root causes of crime are no mystery. As Peter Greenwood, a criminal justice expert with the RAND Corporation explains, "We know the risk factors for violence and what creates it. Kids being born into poverty, to parents who can't take care of them." It is our current social welfare system that has created the risk factors that breed crime.
Nearly all social scientists agree that there is a direct link between out-of-wedlock births and social problems such as crime and drug abuse. For example, one study found that children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. Another study found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single-parent households were twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father was present. With the rate of out-of-wedlock births now over 22% among white women and over 60% among blacks, increased violence and crime is virtually inevitable.
At the same time, social scientists link the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births with the availability of welfare. The Department of Health and Human Services found that a 50% increase in welfare benefits led to a 43% increase in out-of-wedlock births. A second study found that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150%.
This is not to say that a woman will choose pregnancy as a means to go on welfare. But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid pregnancy. A decade ago Charles Murray called for a radical solution to this problem, "scrapping the entire federal welfare and income-support structures." Time has shown Murray to be right.
But my comment was more along the ways of how libertarians tend to be sniveling, selfish, greedy cowards who will gladly take from the community wherever they can while refusing to reciprocate or share their own.
Also, they tend to be idiots.
But then the problem is that there is no incentive for anyone to keep the factories running.
There is no MONETARY incentive for factory workers to create additional profit, above that which is needed for maintaining a monetary status quo, or a very slight profit above it.
There are plenty of other incentives though.
Ever tried to beat your own score in a game? How about collecting all the special items or unlocking achievements?
Anyone paid you for that? Did you get a badge? Or a shirt? How about a citation in front of your peers?
How about your grades in elementary school? Did you get monetary incentive according to your grades and was that your primary motivator?
Fucking? Do you get paid for that? How about eating?
From personal pride of one's work to various propaganda techniques appealing to various human prejudices, from "think of the children" to "Uncle Sam needs you".
Armies are the example of just such an arrangement.
They "belong directly to the public, with what is essentially a 100% "tax" on all profits".
Plus, the workers get a chance to be killed and/or maimed while making almost no money for themselves.
Who'd want to work at a place like that, right? No incentives will bring you back from the dead.
And yet...
Monetary motivation is just the cheapest and easiest to work with, giving the lowest results. Very few people would put their life on the line for "just money".
Millions of people put their lives in danger every day with no hope of monetary compensation.
Doing it "for their community".
Not "for their capital".
...deal.
It's "Why do they have to be dicks about it?" deal.
And no.
"Because copyright", "because trademark", "because association with death" or "cause everyone would be starving their children to death then just to get a Superman statue" is NOT a valid answer.
Being dicks about it is hurting them far more. They chose that. So be it...
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
