Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (Score 0) 355

by bingoUV (#47701839) Attached to: Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

Using b(1) definition of "negative" here, negative can be proven.

Since using one definition of negative, a negative can be proven, the statement "you cannot prove a negative" is false. If you randomly redefine negative as "that something didn't happen", probably it might be correct - depending on how precisely "something" is defined. If "something" includes time, place and manner of its happening, its not happening can be proven.

Comment: Re:Don't allow jpg or gif or ... (Score 2) 298

by bingoUV (#47669299) Attached to: Writer: Internet Comments Belong On Personal Blogs, Not News Sites

Things that are truly offensive tend to get downrated fairly quickly, which I guess is an improvement over most news sites.

Most commenters have replied to the other sentence of your post, but I disagree with this one. Offensive things do get downrated, but that is not an improvement necessarily. Many insightful statements are offensive, to someone or another. Some are offensive to large groups, even mankind. Downrating all of them, like what happens here, may not be such a great idea.

But maybe mankind is too stupid to see insight in offensive statements ;)

Comment: Re:Real genetic differences versus Racism (Score 1) 537

by bingoUV (#47668479) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution

When "we already know" is said in discouraging further research, or to point out the futility of knowledge itself, yes it is analogous to claiming the current "known" is god given truth.

Actually anyone pointing out that some knowledge is unlikely to be helpful is unable to conduct scientific discussion so I realize why you keep claiming to know the people able to have a scientific discussion. But it doesn't work. Because "science happens" even when no good purpose of knowledge can be seen, even when negative purpose is seen.

Comment: Re:Real genetic differences versus Racism (Score 1) 537

by bingoUV (#47660755) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution

We already know, for instance, that a big reason that African Americans are so far behind the rest of Americans is due to environmental factors that can be controlled (the difference in income and education between African Americans and black immigrants to the US is good corroboration of evidence

We "already knew" that continents do not move based on our "theory". Wegener's arguments were rejected due to inflexibility of the theory, and that of the theoreticians who did not want a meterologist to interfere in geology. We were proved wrong, Wegener was right, even more advanced theories of tectonics have been proposed since.

so learning how much, if any of this disparity is caused by nature would not be productive, in my opinion.

Maybe. But the research will not stop at just knowing the amount of disparity caused due to various reasons. Elementary black body radiation research figured out that radiation increases by temperature of the body - but the research did not stop there. Lots of other predictions can be made about black body radiation now, which could not have been made if research had stopped at just calculating the amount of radiation emitted by a body.

Similarly, "a big reason" of African Americans being so far behind the rest of Americans might be "known". That does not mean everything about nature vs nurture that is worth knowing is known. What environmental factors exactly at what stage of life, and in what state of mind, influence exactly what attribute of the later personality of the human? Can particular types of influences be diminished, while accentuating particular types of influences? How? Can a particular type of influence be undone later? How? If these things cannot be done, a rigorous proof is required because "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it".

  And, like I said earlier, "known" has been wrong many times in the past.

Comment: Re:why? (Score 1) 537

by bingoUV (#47653975) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution

And indeed MANY cultures teach their children to hold overly-driven, businessmen/doctors/lawyers/athletes in high esteem.

Sometimes society holding some trait in high esteem creates a selective pressure AGAINST that trait.

It happens because females from richer families marry men having those traits. Females from richer families are less likely to have too many children for multiple reasons - they get little exercise so become infertile sooner, they get an "education" before marrying so start having kids late etc. Similarly males from richer families marry females having those traits, and for similar reasons have less children than less esteemed people.

Comment: Re:Real genetic differences versus Racism (Score 1) 537

by bingoUV (#47653623) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution

proving or disproving the theory that different groups have different innate intelligence levels would do absolutely nothing to advance society, as far as I can predict. People still deserve to be judged on their individual merits regardless of the results of the nature versus nurture debates.

But wouldn't nature vs nurture help us figure out exactly what in nurture is causing what? Schools, parents, society can then get more scientific about their job around children.

Comment: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score 1) 421

by bingoUV (#47644577) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

You got the numbers, but don't understand anything about them. The biggest problems with Indian education are at the primary education level - which is why a huge number of children never reach school, drop out, or don't learn anything in primary school. And the drop outs have more to do with impecuniosity than with schools - children have to start "work" at an age of 9.

Secondary, and higher education is really much better than that in the US - taking cost, availability and quality into account. Which is why those who do get good primary education somehow, are like the people the GP describes.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 406

by bingoUV (#47635999) Attached to: Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway

We demonstrably already have people willing to trust their life to a system which categorically was NOT designed to operate autonomously. We have armies of insurance providers who issue policies based on measured risk rather than perceived risk. And we have regulators who demonstrably prefer to pass rules favoring whichever way the corporate campaign contributions are blowing.

Not sure where this fits. Irrelevant?

We also have a not inconsiderable number of people content to drive through rush-hour traffic while simultaneously talking on the phone, eating breakfast, and possibly managing their kids. I would bet you good money that there's a certain percentage of them that would jump on the chance to have an electronic chauffeur because they are quite aware of many close calls they've had when driving with lots of distractions, but can't bare to schedule things more safely

You have no clue about how humans think.

Or would just appreciate having some time to themselves during the day instead of having to spend a couple hours a day driving the same stretch of idiot-filled road day after day

This is a different point, and I just replied to your argument of safety. You seem to assume safety and perceived safety are same, but it is clear that there is a very weak link between these 2, sometimes increase in one leads to decrease in the other.

They certainly won't be a *majority* any time soon, but if you can appeal to 0.01% of the population that's 40 000 people in the US alone - plenty viable for a test market, and as time goes on the inevitable horror stories will be weighed against the substantial insurance discounts and general laziness. Assume even 1% of the population is rational enough to recognize that the affordable and much improved mk3 version is in fact a safer driver than they are and first-hand experience at the luxury will spread it like wildfire.

Yes, it will probably take decades after the first one hits the road to really catch on, but that's normal - what percentage of cars on the road today do you suppose are 20+ years old?

I am not sure you realize your statements are schizophrenic. Wildfire? 1%? 0.01%? 20 years?

The original poster said "This is why autonomous cars are a long while away", to which you said "Nonsense". Now you yourself say autonomous cars are a long while away, though not in these words, interspersed with contradictions like wildfire.

Comment: Re:They deserve it (Score 1) 286

Now you know that this is a class action suit. But I don't think it is a good idea in the US legal system. Reasons :

1. one initial weakly fought class action suit indemnifies the defendant from a proper class action suit for this topic, and somewhat related topics.

2. the customers get nearly nothing, company loses some money so that future products for the customers are more expensive, and the lawyers get tons of money. All 3 of these monetary transactions are bad for the customers.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 406

by bingoUV (#47621719) Attached to: Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway

Nonsense. The computer only needs to be markedly better than an *average* driver to be a huge safety win. It doesn't even need to *always* be better than the average driver - if it can reliably avoid 90% of the most common accidents, then even it it fails spectacularly in the last 10% of edge cases, and even if humans would have avoided 100% of those, the autonomous systems will still have reduced the number of accidents by a factor of 9.

It only needs to be so to be useful. But it needs to be far better to be perceived to be useful. Because humans - regulators, law-enforcers and car buyers do not think like that.

If an automated car drives 10 times better than average, that is zero advantage. Because an average driver perceives himself as 10 times better than average.

Then there is the issue of control - driving a car seems safer to most people even today than flying as a passenger in an aircraft, because in an aircraft passengers do not control the possibility of accidents. In a car, the driver decides how much risk he takes, and a huge majority of drivers think they are taking zero risk.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 282

by bingoUV (#47621657) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

If B were truly anonymous, then A would not be able to Bully him. Go ahead, try bullying an anonymous coward on slashdot. The idea doesn't even make sense.

Ability to remain anonymous legally in a jurisdiction does not mean everyone is completely anonymous. Ability to carry a loaded gun does not mean everyone carries and is trained to use one. Anonymity in the bullying case is so similar to guns, even fallacies are alike !!

The outbreak of Facebook has ensured 99% of internet users are "effectively de-anonymized". An outbreak of a similar disease in the gun world would ensure guns are rendered useless as a defence too, by de-gunning 99% people.

So what? His pseudo identity will be booted / ip banned, his comments deleted etc.

1. No, online platforms today have done a horrible job in protecting most cases of bullying. There is no reason why de-anonymization laws in one country will suddenly make all online platforms completely cooperative with that one country's vicims in relieving them of the bullying. It is a huge uphill battle to even convince Facebook that a registered account is bullying. Many of those online platforms are not based in that country.

Even if they did get so cooperative suddenly, the bully can change identities and bully again.

"Polite society" can trivially banish and ignore the 'anon' person, and there's nothing he can do about it.

If there were a polite society, online bullying wouldn't be allowed to go so out of control, even without anonymity.

Nothing like guns. ... The guy with the gun can't simply be tossed out ... because he has a gun.

The childish argument of gun superiority. A person you don't know, don't see, attacks from any direction, and cannot be attacked back s infinitely more terrifying than a steel nerved, gun wielding, shooting champion enemy who is de-anonymized.

Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor

Working...