Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use

TsuruchiBrian Here is another hypothesis (708 comments)

There is a high correlation between not believing in climate change and being stupid. There is also a high correlation between being stupid and not having a lot of money to spend consuming energy (e.g. buying a giant house and keeping it climate controlled, etc). Hence the correlation between not believing in climate change and low energy usage.

For all those out there who don't know what a "high correlation" is, please look it up before you reply with a response like "Not all people who ..."

about a week ago
top

A Brief History of Patenting the Wheel: What Goes Around Comes Around

TsuruchiBrian Re:Design patent (36 comments)

I think design patents are stupid. I highly doubt that the quality of designs would suffer if design patents did not exist.

about two weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:So what about people without that choice? (710 comments)

Error: The sentence "Syntax is same as that of your posts, only much less ridden with errors." is inconsistent with English grammar and lacks necessary mathematical and logical precision. Bleep bloop.

about two weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:You're joking right? (710 comments)

What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?

about two weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:You're joking right? (710 comments)

Just because it is hard for workers, doesn't mean the labor market is lopsided. It is hard for employers too

Of course it does - it means we are seeing many examples of the unscrupulous exploiting the situation where people will accept not only worse treatment but also empty promises, as cases at your local courthouse will show. The large number of "commission only" scams that fail to pay a commission is one of the many symptoms you are ignoring. There's also plenty of people doing unpaid overtime to keep thier current job - hence the article we are commenting on in the first place!

There is unscrupulous business practices happening at all times, regardless of whether the labor market is favoring workers or employers. There has never been a time when this wasn't happening somewhere. Is it far to say that the labor market is lopsided toward workers, if I can find plenty of examples of employees taking advantage of his employer? Of course not.

Meanwhile I still find it amusing that you are still attempting the evasion and petty bullying of the "reading comprehension" line that must have won you some schoolyard arguments in the apparently very recent past against people with low self esteem. Give it up, nobody gives a shit about your spelling bee scores here.

It's not a tactic. It's drawing attention to the fact that you can't follow what the people you are arguing with are actually saying. It's pretty fucking hard to have a reasonable argument when one person doesn't understand English. You can call it bullying if you want, but it's true. I am not doing it to win the argument. I'm am doing it to try to get you to read what I am saying rather than substituting whatever you seem to feel like I am saying.

I didn't just accuse you of reading comprehension problems. I cited examples where you completely misread what I had wrote, and in many cases understood the exact opposite of what I was saying.

about two weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:You're joking right? (710 comments)

How long are you going to keep on whining about how you are not a bad boy and just misunderstood?

For as long as you continue to misunderstand my statements.

Also I am not whining. I am showing you how bad at reading comprehension you are.

You've been caught out with ridiculous bullshit - not a lopsided market? Tell that to girls staying in a job where they are being sexually harrassed because there's no other jobs they can find.

So this is what I am talking about.

I say: I don't think the allies are losing the war.
You hear: Not only are the allies winning hugely, there are no allied casualties.
You say: How dare you make the disgusting suggestion that nobody on the allied side is dying. Tell that to the 400,000 dead soldiers.
I say: I didn't say that nobody on the allied side is dying.
You say: Now you are trying to change your story. Which is it? Do you think the allies have no casualties or do you think the axis have no casualties?

You fail to grasp that there is a middle ground between these 2 extremes. But everything that is not on your extreme looks like the opposite extreme even if it is actually pretty moderate.

Unless you've led a very sheltered life or are utterly clueless you would have seen that and more over the last few years, so don't pretend it isn't there - that's being dishonest.

I try not to let my emotions cloud the truth. Just because it is hard for workers, doesn't mean the labor market is lopsided. It is hard for employers too. It's a fucking global recession.

It's not my fault you have trouble understanding what is actually being said, rather than what you are incorrectly inferring.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

This is why "normal" people hate nerds & geeks.

Don't worry, those "normal" people don't know how special you really are.

Obviously, 12oz curls are a physical activity, but no one in their right, non-Aspergers minds actually calls it a "physical activity" in the sense used by everyone except pedantic ass-wipes. (No, that is not an ad hominem attack, because I have facts and definitions on my side.

Even if you did have "facts and definitions on your side", this is still an ad hominem attack which is in addition to whatever other arguments you have.

Like if I said "How could you be right, you are clearly a mental retard for choosing the worst definition for the word "physical", it would be an ad hominem attack in addition to whatever other arguments I may have.

Physical activity is any body movement that works your muscles and requires more energy than resting.

I am apparently going to drop a bombshell and let you in on the secret that wrods have multiple definitions. That's what the numbers in the dictionary entries mean. You can thank me later for blowing your mind.

an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature

An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others

These two are particularly irrelevant given the fact that we are actually debating what should be considered "physical".

Right, because there are no numbers showing what you are hoping can be pulled out of your arse.

I am showing that the brain uses energy to operate. And there are numbers that show that, and I presented them. The only numbers I don't have is how much more energy is used by thinking really hard, because it is disputed. The fact that the brain uses energy is not disputed by any legitimate scientists.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

So, sitting on the couch, doing "12oz curls", is physical activity....

It is indeed, although it's probably not a physical activity that would be considered to improve your physical fitness.

I'll go tell all the psychiatrists & psychologists that /. says they're actually physical therapists,

They are physical therapists in the same sense that our food has chemicals in it. These terms are so broad as to be non-descriptive in many contexts.

So yes psychiatrists are also physical therapists, they are also homo sapiens, humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, carbon-based lifeforms, cells, molecules, atoms, leptons and hadrons.

You can describe a psychiatrist as a bunch of subatomic particles if you want to be as nondescript as possible.

The fact that psychiatrists are actually affecting physical states rather than metaphysical states, does not mean they are no longer psychiatrists.

and mathematicians are actually performing vigorous physical activity when they're thinking really hard.

It sort of depends on what you consider to be "vigorous" and how you want to compare muscular activity to mental activity. The human brain actually uses a lot of energy to operate. IT only accounts for 2% of the mass of a human body, but it uses 20% of the energy when the the body is at rest. It uses somewhere between 12 and 20 watts of energy.

You can use your energy to run a computer to find the answer to a problem. Or you can think about it really hard, or you can use that energy to ride a bike. It all ends up as heat and expended ATP (or decreased electric potential in the case of the computer).

I don't have the exact numbers, but thinking really hard about a math problem could conceivably use more energy than playing a game of pool or a round of bowling.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

Mental activity *is* physical activity according to the definition of "physical". Maybe you want to change your definition of sport to be require "significant non-mental physical activity" or better yet "significant muscular activity".

Even digestion is a physical activity.

This is like saying "Don't eat processed food, it's full of chemicals", when in reality every food is made up entirely of chemicals. Equating "harmful chemicals" to "chemicals" is scientifically inaccurate, because it incorrectly implies that other substances are not chemicals. Equating "bodily movement (i.e. human kinetics)" as "physical" is scientifically inaccurate because it incorrectly implies that other phenomena (like mental activity) are not physical. They certainly aren't metaphysical as previously thought.

Also, bowling and pool are pretty sedentary as well.

about three weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:So what about people without that choice? (710 comments)

Error: your statements are not in correct written in the correct mathematical syntax. Your logic coprocessor must be malfunctioning. Bleep bloop.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

That's the key. GGP's argument is apparently logical, but fails because physical activity means "movement of the body", and even though the "mind" is nothing but the emergent property of all those neuron firing in the brain, there's still no physical activity in playing chess. If you consider "lifting your arm to move the chess piece" to be physical activity, then sitting on the couch and moving your arm to consume beer and Cheetos is also physical activity, but that's sedentary behavior -- very low energy expenditure in a sitting or reclining posture. IOW, my "opinion" is not unsupported, but a fully supported thought, and GGP's "logic" is full of definitional flaws, and thus a fallacy.

Nice try, but no.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

Apparently logic and science are no match for unsupported opinion.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

Go to a busy street and ask 100 people whether the Bible is true.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

Science has basically abandoned Descartes concept of dualism (i.e. that mind and body are separate). We now know that the mind is in the brain and is just as physical as the rest of our bodies. Chess is a game which requires incredible mental skill. And since the brain is physical, mental skills *are* physical skills.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

Well rock-paper-scissors is physical in the sense that you can't play it without atoms/molecules/energy/etc (i.e. physics). But the game itself is basically random (if you do it right).

You don't need any physical skills beyond having a semi-functioning physical body. Having a body and being able to move your arms and hands is physical I guess. Would you really call this a skill? Are the rock-paper-scissor champions more skilled compared to the mediocre in any regard other than luck?

rock paper scissors is as as physical and as skill based as flipping a coin or playing high low.

about three weeks ago
top

IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

TsuruchiBrian Re:simple fix (221 comments)

No, for you, "the bachelor" is a real sport.

about three weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:You're joking right? (710 comments)

I stand by that statement 100%. And in no way does this contradict anything I said. To you it may seem heartless, but this is how lopsided markets get corrected. In the event of a lopsided market (which the OP was claiming), there is a high incentive to be an employer. In this circumstance the best thing for people to do is to become an employer, and doing this comes with a financial incentive. If enough people do this, then the labor market reaches equilibrium and there is no longer a high supply and low demand for labor. Having more people become employers to "exploit" the lopsided labor market actually helps workers. It means a higher ratio of jobs to workers, which means higher wages for the same work. It's better for everybody.

Not always, but often, doing what's best for yourself also helps society as a whole. In a free market, profit is the reward for providing a useful service. In a lopsided market profit is the reward for helping to balance the market.

And before you lose your mind again, no I'm not saying capitalism is flawless or that poor people should be dying in the streets, etc. I am saying that free markets reward people for doing useful things for society. The more useful you are the more profit you make. Certainly there are some people who make profit without being very useful (i.e. thieves, criminals, etc), but that's just something we must deal with.

It's like if you're in an airplane and the masks fall from the ceiling. You are supposed to put on your own mask before helping others. As admirable as it is to help others before helping yourself, you can't help anyone if you are unconscious, and now you require people to help you.

Our society should be focused on minimizing the number of people who need help. This includes people doing what they can to be as successful as possible, and we can have a social safety net that is even more effective for the people who still need it. A wealthy society is one that can afford to do more to help the less fortunate.

about three weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:Obviously the post I replied to in the 1st plac (710 comments)

You got nothing. You can't even cite one example where I contradicted myself. All my posts are public for everyone to see. I don't need to admit anything. Either cite where you think I have contradicted myself, or shut up.

about three weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:Obviously the post I replied to in the 1st plac (710 comments)

I made *lots* of statements and I don't believe any of them are contradictory. If you want to point out which of my statements you think contradicts another I made, go ahead, otherwise I am not going to try and guess what you are referring to.

about three weeks ago
top

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

TsuruchiBrian Re:So what about people without that choice? (710 comments)

1. You had yourself simplified your own statement to "People should do C if A is true". Why are you needing to complicate it further ? Was that aforementioned simplication a mistake on your part? In that case please come clean so that a fresh argument based on your newly simplified statement can be made.

It's the same statement. People should do A if C is true. People should become employers if the market is lopsided in favor of employers. I think the fact that more people are not rushing to become employers (as in the case of a rise in new businesses during an economic boom), is good evidence that the labor market is not lopsided in favor of employers currently.

2. In this case, doctor cannot truthfully claim to not having advised the "patient" to report for a checkup. Doctor is guilty of not defining emergency with mathematical precision.

It is not a doctor's job to define an emergency with mathematical precision. IT is his job to define an emergency in terms relevant to the field of medicine. With the near infinite number of things that can happen, a doctor must rely on others to use their best judgement as to what is an emergency. There is no mathematical formula for what specific situations qualify as an emergency.

1. You have not proven with mathematical precision that the reader is incorrect.

I was not attempting to prove with mathematical precision that the reader was incorrect. I was claiming that I don;t think the reader was correct in order to clarify the fact that I am *not* personally recommending that people do C, because I don't *think* A is true.

2. Even if you had, you are incorrect in claiming "People should do C if A is true" does not mean "People should do C" for some people.

No I am not. If *some* people think swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency, the doctor is not telling those people to come to the hospital. The doctor doesn't think swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency for anybody. It doesn't matter what the patient thinks, he is not recommending anybody come to the hospital for this.

1. If "people" refers to a group (to which the reader belongs) AND also to the complement of that set (everyone else), only a person intending to deceive would word it in so complicated a manner.

Assuming the reader is a person (i.e. a member fo the group "people") is complicated and deceptive?

An honest person would simply call it "people", or "everyone".

I did until you asked me to clarify if I was talking to the reader or "people", and I decided to not specifically exclude the reader from "people".

2. Now, for everyone, the recommendation is "People should do C", which is now clarified to "Everyone should do C" whenever the reader is of an opinion "A is true". You are claiming otherwise.

I didn't say everyone. In fact I think I specifically said that *not* everyone should become employers. And no I am not saying "when the reader is of an opinion A", I am saying "when A is true". My recommendation doesn't depend on what the readers opinion is, like how it doesn't matter that the patient thinks swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency. I am saying "Don't fo to the hospital because swallowing a watermelon seed is not an emergency, but if it was an emergency you should go to the hospital because you should go to the hospital for any emergency." In this way I am providing a different recommendation if it turns out swallowing a watermelon seed is indeed an emergency for some newly discovered reason.

BTW acting like a math robot doesn't do anything for your argument. It just makes you seem like some asperger's pedant. And the only thing worse than a pedant is a wrong pedant.

I am telling you exactly what I mean, and you are trying to reduce my statement's through some kind of logical analysis that isn't even methodologically correct.

I was trying to be patient with you, but you seem to just want to argue some retarded semantic point rather than understand what I am saying. I am done with this conversation

about three weeks ago

Submissions

TsuruchiBrian hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

TsuruchiBrian has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...