Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Well known: 2 sigma gap (Score 1) 648

I've dealt with people two sigmas apart with no problems. I often deal with people three sigmas down.

My attitude is that I'm smart, so I should be able to figure out how to communicate. It took me a long time to get the hang of it, but I figured it out pretty well. When trying to convince people less intelligent than me, I look for reasons they'll understand. I'm pretty good at it.

I think I'd do better without the ASD, but I seem do get by.

Comment Re:Let's question some assumptions (Score 1) 648

If higher IQ is necessarily more advantageous, why did humans evolve to have average IQ's of 100 rather than 180?

If greater strength is more advantageous, why didn't we evolve to have more efficient, or at least bigger, muscles? Or, if resistance to injury and disease is more advantageous, why didn't we evolve more of it (as it is, we're really really good at it, by animal standards).

The current human genome is demonstrably less efficient than it could be, because evolution doesn't use good optimization algorithms that converge fast. Given that, just being qualitatively superior in a trait to all other animals may wind up as enough.

Comment Re:actually (Score 1) 648

It was a result of extraordinary intelligence. Einstein didn't get his Nobel Prize for Special Relativity, but instead for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. In 1905, he published on Special Relativity, the mechanism behind the photoelectric effect, and how Brownian motion worked, three major breakthroughs. Later on, he published on General Relativity. That's four really major breakthroughs in physics, and I might have missed something. He wasn't a one-hit wonder.

It wasn't just basic very high intelligence. Henri Poincare had pretty much worked out the mathematics of Special Relativity earlier, but Poincare didn't understand their implications, which were too radical for him to consider. Einstein realized that the mathematics showed that there is no such thing as absolute space, absolute time, and that "at the same time" is meaningless applied to events at different locations. Relativity remained extremely controversial for a long time.

His contributions to the later development of quantum physics were of another sort. He could never accept the Uncertainty Principal, so he came up with really ingenious arguments against it, which forced the people who were right about quantum mechanics to nail everything down, and therefore helped confirm the Principal.

Comment Re:There has to be a better way (Score 1) 648

In what way was the intellectual class harming the middle and working classes? I'd say it was the upper class that was doing it, and that's not the intellectual class. Intellectuals, after the 60s, were reluctant to embark on foreign adventurism.

The mass of journalists supporting Clinton in 2016 was because they were aware of what would happen with the alternative. Journalists have always tended to be left-wing (they are exposed to more reality than most people), and media owners tend to be hard right-wing, so it balances out.

Comment Re:There has to be a better way (Score 1) 648

Pershing was a good general in some respects, but I don't see greatness. He did indeed insist on the American Expeditionary Force acting as a whole, which delayed its effectiveness to the very end of the war. It seems to me that the largest effect of the US entry on the war was presenting Germany with a deadline: win in 1918 or lose, because in 1919 the US was going to have pretty much its full strength in the war.

The main rap against the Entente leadership was that the Western Front was a bloody stalemate for years. The assumption is that they should have thought of a way to avoid that. However, in a century of speculating, nobody's come up with a way to do it. Some people have named leaders, like Napoleon and the Australian commander Monash, who they thought could have broken through. Faced with similar situations, Napoleon did no better. Monash was an excellent commander, applying the offensive tactics of the day superbly, but he couldn't come up with a better solution.

The Germans are often lauded for their Stosstruppen tactics, but those weren't all that much advanced over contemporary British and French tactics. The major difference is that the Stosstruppen were attacking defensive systems far less sophisticated than what the Germans had. Even then, the Germans couldn't accomplish anything decisive.

Late war offensive tactics were perfectly adequate to coordinate infantry and artillery to take a trench line. When attacking Germans, behind that would be another trench line. If the infantry struggled forward to assault it, timing the artillery support was largely guesswork. There was no way to break through German lines without halfway decent portable radios. Even late in 1918, they were keeping a continuous line, although it was falling back pretty rapidly.

Comment Re:to be fair... (Score 1) 648

she rigged her primary

She got more primary votes than Sanders, and more delegates. Sanders did better in caucus states, where you'd expect the party to have greater influence. Not to mention there was no such thing as "her primary" - there are fifty states and a few other territories, all of which had some method of picking delegates.

Now it appears that even the Obama FBI and the Obama DOJ were pulling for Hillary.

Nope. Comey's October sortaleak about Clinton's emails hurt her in the polls at a critical time. Comey clearly was anti-Cinton.

Comment Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score 1) 648

You're starting with the "right" to own and operate firearms. Therefore, if someone forbids you to get a firearm, you see it as an attack on your rights. In most other developed countries, people don't have a guaranteed right to firearms, and see good reasons for restrictions on them.

Are you upset about the Reagan-era law that says we can't have an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986? Since that forbids either of us from getting a modern infantry rifle, it looks to me to be infringing on the Second Amendment. (Personally, I"m not real fond of that amendment, but it's still part of the Constitution, and I dislike infringing on Constitutional rights.) That law stops private individuals from owning and operating modern automatic weapons in legal manners.

Comment Re: They talk funny (Score 1) 648

There's no clear opponent because it's January 2018, and we'll select the candidate in Summer 2020 and have the general election in November 2020. There's plenty of time for somebody to come out of relative obscurity and get the nomination.

Are Democrats in favor of mass immigration? Or does it matter if they can be described in those terms?

Comment Re:1997???? (Score 1) 219

A completely meaningless name is better than Free for software that is free to use to the fullest? I strongly disagree, and if we disagree that much we may as well drop it.

You didn't say "compatible with the GPL". You said "copyleft-compatible". Not all Free software is GPL-compatible, and I didn't bother looking up other copyleft licenses to see if said Free Software is compatible with them.

Comment Re:Worth noting the party breakdown (Score 1) 354

Most people like living free of toxic waste (at least other people's). Many people like getting the whole internet without paying extra. In the first case, it only takes one company of many to ruin your whole day and probably tomorrow, while in the second it takes all of a normally extremely short list of companies to decide. In neither case do we want each individual company to decide.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...