Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Confirmation Bias (Score 1) 309

I think it's more of a subtle (and not so subtle) condescending attitude to "the other side". Pick your adjectives -- dishonest, cruel, stupid, immoral, and so on. Even when it's not explicitly stated.

I think those kinds tones are much harder to pull off in face-face encounters. People are forced to be more accommodating in person.

I agree that face to face is the ideal way to debate and discuss. And I want debates, not two monologues where each person talking past the other. The key is listening and trying to understand where the other person is coming from. I think being online makes monologues easy since the other person is not right there.

Comment Re:Confirmation Bias (Score 1) 309

It's the *presentation* and tone of both that turn me off, and neither person comes off that way in person. I think that's what contributes to the corrosiveness of social media, it's less about the ideas than their presentation and tone.

Yes, the presentation and tone are major turn offs. It is hard to have a civil discourse when both sides are screaming bloody murder. That bothers me the most and makes me want to block them. I would like to hear arguments that support their views, the ones I don't agree with, so I can learn, but most of the time it is just tearing down the other side. The presentation and tone does give me a view of how corrosive the political debate has become and how divided the country is.

Comment Confirmation Bias (Score 3, Interesting) 309

Social Media makes it easy for us to reinforce and confirm our beliefs. Family and friends help shape our beliefs and our social media "friends" tend to be those people. Social media puts us in a bubble as we self-select our "friends". We do not hear alternate views. I have 2 high school friends on Facebook, one is right wing and the other is left wing. They are both prolific in their postings. I want to block both of them but I don't so that I hear alternate viewpoints. We need to listen to alternate viewpoints. That is why they are not blocked.

Comment Post-Modern Sources (Score 4, Interesting) 444

Starbird says she's concluded, provocatively, that we may be headed toward 'the menace of unreality -- which is that nobody believes anything anymore."

I believe that the "nobody believes anything" is somewhat here today. To determine what is true, we rely on family and friends to help us. There is no longer any authority that we trust to tell us the truth. This puts us into bubbles where we only believe news that confirms our bias. We are suspicious of any news source that deviates from what we believe to be true. The internet makes it easy to confirm our bias and stay in our bubble. We need to listen to the alternate viewpoints even if we disagree. This will give us a broad background to help us think critically and help us break out of our bubbles.

Comment These Days (Score 3, Interesting) 402

In our post-modern society, we are shaped by our family and friends. To determine what is true, we rely on family and friends to help us. There is no longer any authority that we trust to tell us the truth. That make it harder to fight against fake news. I still believe that the facts are the facts and the truth is the truth, but we end up in these larger bubbles with friends and family miss out on hearing alternate viewpoints. That makes it easier for fake news to delude us and harder for us to determine the truth. We need to listen to the alternate viewpoints even if we disagree. I think that broad background along with critical thinking will help us determine whether a story is fake news or not.

Comment Editorials as News (Score 3, Informative) 154

When I was trying to find out who really was this Trump guy, an editorial was one of the news links on the Google News front page. I clicked on the link to learn more about him and had to deal with an editorial rant. That really bothered me. It was a clearly marked editorial in the opinion section of the web site. Google's algorithms should be easily able to remove those from the news. If Google News wants to post editorials, they should be clearly marked as editorials in the links. My trust of Google News was damaged and I am much more suspicious of Google News now. They can do better and should.

Comment Re:Was it Helped? (Score 1) 76

Pushing back the evidence of life implies one of the following is true.

1) Life (abiogenesis) is easy to get started and the Universe is full of life.

Well, it shows that it is liklier easier than expected. If it took only a 300 million years to start here then the best guess at the mode is of course 300 million years, say down from 500 million.

That of course implies that the window for life to evolve is likely shorter than we previously expected and naturally the number of places with a short window must be greater than or equal to the number of places with a longer window (in any remotely statistically sane universe, greater).

As the minimum window shortens, the number of opportunities for life to get started expands.

I don't think that proves the universe is full of life.

2) It was an extremely rare event for life to start on Earth.

I don't see how it implies that. We don't know precisely how rare the event was but as the earliest point moves back, the event looks less rare than before.

I see things differently. I believe you are saying that since the time period is shorter, the probability for life must be greater. (Correct me if I am wrong.) I start with a fixed (but unknown) small probability. Then by shortening the time period one makes it less likely life would form, because there are less cases where the needed ideal conditions exist for life to form.

3) Life started somewhere else and ended up on Earth.

Not really sure how it implies that. No matter what the distribution of life seeds arriving from outside, the narrower the window, the smaller chance life had to arrive from the outside. So it implies this option is less likely, but not by how much.

4) Life had outside help in getting started.

You've just deferred the problem, though to whatever gave rise to the outside helper.

i.e. a supernatural event.

Possibly, but the probability increases from something minute to something marginally less minute. We've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural existing that's held up to scrutiny, so the chance of supernatural things existing is very small at this point.

Using that fixed probability and the shorten time period, I see the need to look for other opportunities, such as panspermia or a purposeful outside intervention (which may be a supernatural intervention). Personally I think there are enough stories of the supernatural miracles that you can not discount them. (One example is the rigorous process the Catholic Church goes through to verify miracles in their sainthood process. They have had atheists look at the evidence of a miracle to try to disprove it.)

Comment Was it Helped? (Score 1) 76

Pushing back the evidence of life implies one of the following is true.
1) Life (abiogenesis) is easy to get started and the Universe is full of life.
2) It was an extremely rare event for life to start on Earth.
3) Life started somewhere else and ended up on Earth.
4) Life had outside help in getting started.
I personally believe that life is extremely hard to get going and with the evidence of life showing up even earlier, it makes it more likely that there was some outside help, i.e. a supernatural event.

Comment Re:As I've said before... (Score 1) 379

Yes, "Wikipedia, as an idea, has a lot of promise", but human nature gets in the way. We are self-centered beings that corrupt the good ideas we want to do. Wikipedia has for the most part delivered on that promise and where it fails it assumes that people will always work for gathering and publishing the best information on a topic. Instead of people's own selfish agendas and egos get in the way. It is human nature. Wikipedia has enough bureaucracy already so I don't know what the answer is.

Comment Response to Mac OS X (Score 3, Interesting) 492

A lot of developers use Macs because of the Unix foundation and the nice interface. It makes it easy to develop applications and put them on a linux web server. I think Microsoft is doing this to provide a familiar Unix foundation for developers, and making it Ubuntu compatible may make it easier to use than the Max OS X.

Comment Not from scratch (Score 4, Informative) 167

Moonchild's proposal involves creating a new browser from scratch, in a so-called "re-forking" operation, where the Pale Moon devs take a newer version of Firefox and rebuild Pale Moon on top of that.

They are not building it from scratch. They will use a newer version of Firefox as a starting point. It is "re-forking". It is likely they will not use the latest version since they want to keep tab groups. Though it will be new code when compared to the old Palemoon.

Comment It is too late. (Score 4, Insightful) 113

With so many encryption options out there, why build your own. WebRTC in the chrome and firefox browsers require you to touch a server briefly to find the other party so to connect, and then you have a direct encrypted connection. They could easily use that or one of the many other options out there. All this talk about backdoors is a waste of time. The ship has already sailed. It is too late.

Comment Re:Right and Wrong (Score 1) 519

We are far apart, but I would hazard a guess that the Objectivism of Ayn Rand is more a minority viewpoint than my Christianity (which is not the moralistic legalism of many Americans). Maybe I am wrong. Both are views are minority viewpoints today, though on the topic of right and wrong I think most people would agree with my thinking because of the past influence of Christianity in Western World. I don't think objective selfishness will bring about world peace. I think altruism could if we could not be selfish, but selfishness is part of our nature and so it is a nonstarter for us. As I see it, the problem is I desire something; I then rationalize why I should have it; and then I take it. That does not bring about peace. That rationalization is flawed because I can not guarantee that my reason will be impartial and perfect. I am not certain if it ever can be.

Note from the book you recommended, I made an assumption that you follow the teachings of Ayn Rand. Correct me if I am wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

Working...