Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 744

by bingoUV (#47972597) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

reason for the shirt to exist. In that case, the answer is obvious: because someone created it

No. Answer could be
1. John didn't let me destroy the shirt
2. We failed to H-bomb the warehouse before the shirt was shipped from there.

See what happened? Asking "why" about non-sentient beings, or about sentient beings doing things unintentionally actually means "what could I have known which would enable ME to predict that this would happen ?" It is an imprecise question because the question is put in terms which mean different from what is being said. It is better to directly ask "what could I have done to predict this" when talking about precise things.

The real "why" is always about sentient beings. Either the being doing something, or about the questioner being able to predict the event.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 744

by bingoUV (#47972459) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

"Why" is a very ambiguous and unhelpful question. In typical language, why means one of 2 very different things :

1. When asked of a sentient being, with an agency, doing an intentional activity - e.g. "why did the chicken cross the road". Here the question "why" expects the answer explaining something about the mental process of the sentient being which made it "want" to cross the road.

Once the question "why" is asked and like you do, speculated that there might be an answer to the "why", this is a huge logical fallacy many people fail to catch. This presupposes that there is a "sentient being" or one with agency that caused events. But since most people don't realize the meaning of "why", they are trapped.

2. When asked of non-sentient things, or beings doing something unintentionally, the question "why" is very ambiguous. E.g. "why did the pen catch fire". The answer is generally to read a lot into the question and describe "why" (1) the event should have been expected even before it happened. The expectation is by a sentient being, so the first definition of "why" is applicable. So the answer could be
A. "because it was made of wood".
B. "because ink in it was combustible".
C. "because Greg burned it with a matchstick".

See what happened? A sentient being was invented - a great way to advance the cause of religion again.

In answer A, it is assumed the questioner did not expect a pen to be made of wood, but actually questioner did not ask what the pen was made of. Answer B is about the ink, again something that was not asked.

Basically, it is not incorrect to say, that "why" doesn't mean anything. At least when talking in precise terms, vague questions like "why" which are intentionally vague only make the conversation more difficult without contributing anything positive.

Comment: Re:In lost the will to live ... (Score 1) 744

by bingoUV (#47972389) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Honestly, I view statistics as the belief system of science. It can't be proven

A system cannot be proven. A hypothesis can be - in science at times the "proof" is just a single experiment and lack of refutation. So if you go about "proving" a "system", you come across like an idiot trying to "eat" "politics".

What hypothesis prevalent in the field of statistics do you think cannot be proven?

Comment: Re:In lost the will to live ... (Score 1) 744

by bingoUV (#47972037) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Yes, most of us agree that it's wrong to willfully hurt others, but why? If you think that we're just collections of cells, then the only thing you should care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.

No, it does not even follow that a "collection of cells" should care about its own personal survival and comfort.

Comment: Re:Not a boycott but a confirmation (Score 1) 458

by bingoUV (#47971813) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Ok, so non-text binary logs are acceptable when equal or more variety of tools are available to view/manipulate them vs text binary logs.

Which is not yet, so your objection to objection to binary logs is invalid at the moment.

There is NO REASON a binary log format could not be as well documented and supported, particularly if it were a standard across all linux distros.

There is one. It is called text. Hence the objection against "binary" formats, which colloquially but imprecisely refers to "non-text binary" formats.

Comment: Re:Your DL and plates are fucked, but phone works? (Score 1) 504

by bingoUV (#47944169) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

And you happen to have a contact for your wife in your phone that says "WIFE" and not just her first name?

I've seen untrained bystanding good samaritans inspecting phones of a unconscious person. They look for last few calls to saved numbers and call most of them. Even if they don't get the spouse of the person, they get someone who knows someone who knows .... the spouse. Not difficult really.

Comment: Re:We'll see (Score 1) 504

by bingoUV (#47944137) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

Indian governments are typically more concerned with communications - email / SMS / phone calls. Rather than contents of phone or computers. Indian concerns are a result of low-tech terrorists from Pakistan blowing random shit - Indian agencies still get significant intelligence by tapping SMS and phone calls. Contents of phones don't help Indian security agencies much in this regard currently.

US security agencies are more concerned with content - kiddie porn obsession has a lot to do with it. Different strokes for different folks. Apple's strategy doesn't have the danger you mention, in India, as their calls, SMSes and emails are still subject to simple warrants.

Indian attitude to Blackberry was due mainly to communications rather than content of devices.

Comment: Re:Gotta say... (Score 1) 122

by bingoUV (#47943369) Attached to: Farmers Carry Multidrug-Resistant Staph For Weeks Into Local Communities

ALL the cars need gas hauled by the offroading cars (ALL people need food produced / handled / processed by farm workers).

The radiation is transmitted (!!) by gas. (The bugs are transmitted by food - may not cause a problem with gut but a skin cut during cutting vegetables, or touching one's food with injured body part is not unheard of).

So the 33% doesn't increase to 34% or 35% - but progressively, and potentially 90+% i.e. an unrelated coincidence can expose 90+% people to the bugs in farm workers' noses.

Comment: Re:Bring back windows XP. (Score 1) 541

by bingoUV (#47925539) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9

The window preview as you hover over the tasks in the task bar is addictive. Being able to see thumbnails of each application window makes it easier to pick which window to bring forward (another bonus for multi-taskers).

You seem like you know what you are talking about. Can you tell me how to disable this in Windows 7? I have somehow removed the thumbnail of the running application window, but a tooltip still appears even if mouse cursor reaches the toolbar accidentally, refusing to go away for a while, blocking my screen.

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.