Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:16:15 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, Harry Tabak <htabak@quadtelecom.com>, dever@getaclue.net, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <3E110BFF.3A0B5A1B@mindspring.com> References: <200212310238.gBV2c0177895@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > >> Because the assumptions you call "systems engineering" and "emergent > >> behaviors" may not apply when dealing with a large space of humanity. > > > > Sure they do. > > LOL. You can't prove that assertion, you don't have the means. You mean, of course, that I can't prove it to you, due to your willful ignorance of the calculus necessary to the proof. 8-). > > Human behaviour, at least relative to groups, is both quantifiable > > and predictable. > > I disagree, and here we meet the classic Lambert/Hayes impasse. > Welcome back! These mailing lists are completely predictable because the FreeBSD project itself is completely predictable, as a variation of the non-linear Richardson equation describing a mutual security game called "GloboCop". This is a very elementary mutual security game, which is easy to understand and model, if you are willing to learn how to solve partial differential equations. > >> Your analogy is arbitrary. People -do- deny the existence of both > >> those forces. Whether they are "right" or not depends on the circle > >> of people they are addressing. I certainly wouldn't address a PhD in > >> physics with this denial, I might address a group of new age > >> "spiritual" people that way. > > > > Yet a falling anvil from the top of the building will not respect > > their beliefs. > > You'd be surprised. I've seen instances with my own eyes where the > laws of physics haven't held. I know I take great risk saying this, > because this is akin to telling a Christian that Jesus was just > another man...but that's my experience. Feel free to demonstrate them repeatably under laboratory conditions... you will win the acceptance of all true scientists. > > Beliefs that contradict reality are unconvincing to reality > > Even the belief that there is one and only one objective reality which > everyone shares whether they want to or not? Does that one contradict reality? > > You can't argue with the laws of physics (well, you can... but you > > will always lose; gotta love the laws of physics...). > > When you can explain the magic of David Copperfield or David Blane, > I'll listen to this argument. They are perceptual tricks. Almost all visual tricks are based on the fundamental wiring of human beings. If you want me to come up with a way to duplicate a particular trick, then provide a reference for the trick, so that I can personally observe its operation. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E110BFF.3A0B5A1B>