Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Already gone (Score 1) 304

by jdavidb (#48161083) Attached to: Technology Heats Up the Adultery Arms Race

I can surely see the point in avoiding making people feel like the "ought to" do anything - it's a wholly destructive concept wherein you hold yourself up to an arbitrary yardstick and inevitably fall short (if you didn't fall short there would be nothing that you "ought to" be doing).

You wouldn't believe how destructive it is when a philandering spouse wants to maintain a secret second life and uses this to guilt you into not checking up on them.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for it

Well, you shouldn't strive for it, because it's your mate that has to strive for it. The feeling of trust is a feeling that is created by the mate's actions. You check up on them to see what they are doing, and if they are behaving in a trustworthy manner, eventually you feel trust.

One of Harley's major premises is that as a psychologist, it's easier to change behavior than feelings. The change in feelings comes after your spouse changes behavior (which sometimes comes after you yourself change behavior - for example, by starting to check up on them).

Comment: Re:Already gone (Score 1) 304

by jdavidb (#48154627) Attached to: Technology Heats Up the Adultery Arms Race

Which would seem to suggest that trust is important

Well, he goes on to say that trust is still irrational, and to insist that it is not trust that makes a marriage successful. Since a big part of his work is about motivation, he's very careful to word things such that people don't feel like they "ought to" trust. In fact, trying to make a spouse feel like they "ought to" trust and that something is wrong with them if they do not is a common tactic for spouses in an affair who do not want to be discovered.

Comment: Re:Already gone (Score 2) 304

by jdavidb (#48152981) Attached to: Technology Heats Up the Adultery Arms Race

Unrelated. In this case we're not talking about the application of tools, we're talking about trust - which is widely considered to the THE most important factor in any healthy relationship. So lets try this on for size: "If you feel you can't trust the person you've chosen to be your life partner, your relationship already has serious issues"

"Widely considered" is an interesting standard of expertise to use about relationships, since the vast majority of relationships and marriages fail. In fact the vast majority of people who get counseling report that it didn't help them.

Dr. Willard Harley is the author of His Needs, Her Needs, one of the few relationship books that was indicated by a study to actually be successful, and he has actually applied statistics and science to measure the success of his approach to marital counseling. His approach is successful in saving relationships and restoring the feeling of romantic love (or creating it if it did not previously exist).

Harley stands outside of mainstream advice on a number of issues, but as I just said, mainstream advice hasn't been demonstrated to be particularly helpful. Dr. Harley's opinion on trust is that you should not trust each other in a relationship but that instead you should invite each other to check up on each other to whatever extent you choose. In his words, snoop until snooping is boring because you've snooped enough that you know you won't find anything. When you get to that point, you'll feel trust, rather than forcing yourself to feel it irrationally (i.e., without evidence, or in contrast to what the evidence actually says).

Comment: Re:Opensource remake (Score 2) 93

I took a graduate neural networks class in 2002 and did my implementation in Perl using PDL. The professor desperately pushed matlab on everybody but left us free to choose our own implementation language, and I chose Perl. I felt I understood neural networks pretty well at the end of the project. Twelve years on all I remember are the basic concepts at a high level.

Comment: Re:"could be worse than Heartbleed" (Score 1) 318

by jdavidb (#47997461) Attached to: Flurry of Scans Hint That Bash Vulnerability Could Already Be In the Wild

any CGI script that at any point invokes a shell or invokes a program that invokes a shell (e.g. using the system call), irrespective of the actual shell command

But it's been well known for more than ten years that you ought not to call system or execute external programs from a CGI program. That's just a bad idea. This exploit is one proof as to why.

Comment: Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (Score 4, Insightful) 418

by jdavidb (#47491901) Attached to: Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

Notice that the guy who said it is an advertising guy. That's his whole worldview. That's the way he thinks it is and the way he thinks it should be. Meanwhile for the rest of us, we have lots of alternatives. Paid sites, community-supported sites, ad-blocked sites, sites run by people who love what they are running a site about.

Basically this is a little advertiser wanting us to support clubbing a big advertiser, Google. He'd like us to get mad at his competition. What he wouldn't like is for us to start noticing just how much what he is advocating is in his self-interest.

I recommend we all switch to ad-block and screw them all. If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.

Comment: Realistic (Score 2) 170

by jdavidb (#47373443) Attached to: Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

You don't have to be "cynical" to expect the government to act in the government's own best interest. The idea that one piece of government will keep another piece in check rather than colluding together to expand power is an unrealistic pipe dream. Honestly we've had over two hundred years of real world experimental evidence demonstrating that checks and balances DON'T WORK. They never did, and never will. The only realistic check on government power is secession.

Comment: Re:What's wrong with luxury? (Score 1) 276

by jdavidb (#47314115) Attached to: Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution

Because one of the government's justifications in the past has been that it's not really that much of a hardship

True. And I used to buy that. :( I hardly ever fly, and I used to actually think I should have a say in what other people do in life.

judges tend to try to avoid flat out saying "my predecessors and colleagues were idiots and their rulings were bullshit."

Sounds like a job for a jury! :)

Comment: What's wrong with luxury? (Score 2) 276

by jdavidb (#47312003) Attached to: Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution

The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world.

What does that have to do with it? Even if it were a mere convenience or luxury, the point of government is to secure the right to liberty. That includes the liberty to enjoy some things that some people might regard as a luxury (a subjective judgment if I ever heard one), so long as I am not doing so at the expense of somebody else's right to life, liberty, or property.

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...