any logician will assert/concede/stand-completely-baffled-at-any-counter-assertion that inductive evidence could ever be used to logically prove a deduction
Also, I clearly meant but completely mistyped that logicians assert, etc. that inductions can "never" be used as logical proof of deductions.
Of course deductions carry scientific weight, but they don't serve as meaningful evidence and instead as the basis of a hypothesis. The very nature of an axiom in science is that of a logically-unproven premise that, itself, can't be used to scientifically "prove" a concept. Therefore, it's necessary that induction be used to justify a deduction, but any logician will assert/concede/stand-completely-baffled-at-any-counter-assertion that inductive evidence could ever be used to logically prove a deduction. Therefore, the level of "proof" for science, which is to say the level at which it becomes warranted to treat a theory as an axiom, is much less rigorous than the level at which it becomes warranted to treat a deduction as a premise. The assertion that you have to meaningfully "trust" evidence runs counter to the foundations of science is a bit of a misnomer, therefore, as one need not assume that a theory is indefatigably true to build off of it, but to assume that the theory has logical conclusions that can be tested.
I'm certainly not pretending that people were suddenly convinced because of Sputnik that the Earth was round. There were myriad reliable indicators to show us that the Earth is round (horizons, sailing in a straight line around it, high-atmosphere observable curvature, shadows on the moon, etc.), but throwing something into space and watching it circle around several times is something like the final nail in a coffin that had been comfortably nailed shut for some time. This, therefore, is why I chose the analogy of Sputnik to illustrate that stronger support for an already completely uncontentious theory is not the "proof" the article is asserting it is, it's just more strong evidence that agrees with the already-existing strong evidence.
Yeah, but we didn't need to detect proton-proton neutrinos to know that fusion powers the sun, because we have myriad other indicators (spectrum, energy output, solar wind) that agree with the current theory. The fact that we have now seen proton-proton neutrinos is cool as hell, but this will never be "proven" significantly more than it currently is, unless science changes drastically to allow for deductive facts. Science allows for an inductive form of "proof" (something being so probable it will likely never be demonstrated wrong) that's less rigorous than the logical kind, and fusion in the Sun has long been under that label. For analogy, we didn't have to wait until Sputnik had orbited Earth to know that Earth was round (since that was known to academics 2000 years earlier), but it certainly made people feel more confident in that fact when it happened.
Solar Cell efficiency is low, and would likely be ineffective given the limited sun-exposed faces of the aircraft. Using a quantum-dot paint for solar could be viable (they're far more efficient). Secondly, batteries are currently very heavy, which would be a problem. Lightweight, structural batteries would help greatly with that issue. Thirdly, batteries don't really store enough energy currently. Next-generation structural batteries potentially could, but those are some years off. Lastly, the anodes and cathodes of current batteries degrade too quickly. There are upcoming technolgies that can withstand tens of thousands of recharge cycles, but they're all very preliminary. Since planes are expected to have very long life spans, that makes electrical planes currently impractical.
Given the above technologies, electrical planes will be very practical within probably 20-30 years. Until then, they are impractical because, logistically speaking, you charge up the plane and, while it's flying, let the solar do all it can to keep the batteries up. The distance the plane can travel, then, is a function of its total stored energy and all of the energy collected from the solar.
Assuming you're not worried about backup speed, you could use a four-bay external hard-drive enclosure in combination with RSYNC and LVM on any linux variety. I don't know if they all do, but the MediaSonic HF2-SU3S2 supports 3TB hard drives per bay, which means that two of them could be used in conjunction to provide 24TB of backup storage. Since you can make a large volume out of the full 24TB using LVM, you could even use something like dd to write to the disk (RSYNC with the archive option would be a better choice though, imho).
The issue with this argument is that they aren't rebroadcasting, they're just directing the signal as a slingbox would. There is exactly one end user unit (could be a person or a household) of the information, and it is not being made publicly available.
If I set up a slingbox in my livingroom, it is legal to use that slingbox to consume the signal on another of my devices. What if I set up a slingbox on a roof in Brooklyn and streamed the content to my house in Texas? The only difference between these scenarios is geography. What I see here is the case of a company saying, "Instead of having you own the antenna in Brooklyn, we'll set up the antenna and the tunnel for you, and you can consume it how you wish."
Adversely affect the actual output? Sure. The problem isn't the effectiveness of the output, though, it's the output itself. This may sound ridiculous, but we get enough sunlight that most parts of Earth could positively contribute, especially if much of that land is not biome-valuable. In the cases of Alaska, Texas and the Mojave, we have incredible potential for output, with little-to-no biome detriment.
They've been ignoring geothermal for years, and it's good that they're finally getting into it. There's so little feasible habitable space that it could make a great effect on Alaska. However, they also have the benefit of wide-open plains that, for the most part, won't be adversely affected by more modern solar methods. Alaska is essentially a geo/solar power source that remains fundamentally untapped, and really has a ton of potential.
Indeed, ethics is generally about social relations between people. One could make a case (maybe) that it's immoral to do this, but the only question of ethics I can see here is that of assisting a grieving family.
Vista is typically seen as being pretty memory-hogging to begin with, whereas I've successfully run gutsy with compiz on my EeePC, and it doesn't, even then, have a problem with memory. The article pretty directly says that at the very most, the machine in question was set up to use no more than 87MiB, and out of that it wasn't even using a third.
He's a justice... It's the Judiciary's job to discern violation and correctness of laws. In addition to that, the practice of judicial review is well-ingrained in our justice system, and widely accepted as both legal and appropriate for the checking and balancing of the other two branches.
I thought this almost exactly when I read this. It's nice to see a part of the biggest threat to constitutional liberties finally being acted against. It seems like the Patriot Act has been too successful for too long in accomplishing the point of its name, which seems to be stigmatizing going against it (if you don't like the patriot act, you're unpatriotic, or some other such tripe). Though I'd like to see the whole thing struck down, chipping away at it piece by piece is a very agreeable alternate.
I don't necessarily see the FDA as a bad thing, since most of what they do results in me not dying from botulism. They're right to say that nanotech affects them, as nanotech is likely to go into all of the above-listed things. A bit of accountability would be nice, but I'm not expecting that any time soon from the government of the US. In any case, I just hope they don't screw it up.
I think that home-ground drip coffee makes sufficiently good coffee, as far as opportunity cost is concerned. Some of the other methods make slightly better tasting coffee, but they're also much more intensive. I use one tablespoon of coffee beans for each cup marked on my pot, and I use a burr grinder, as the grounds don't expand nearly as much as with a mill grinder, meaning that I can make more strong coffee per pot. If I make 6 pot-cups with mill-ground coffee, the grounds fill the filter almost to the point of overflowing, and that's with a #4 filter and a 10-pot drip maker. If I instead use burr-ground coffee, the grounds do not expand nearly as much, meaning that I can make a full 10 cups of strong coffee without any risk of the ground overflowing.
Yeah, and both times it was pretty clearly stated that the scientist types didn't think the phenomena were really related. I'm confused as to why this has been reposted.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and shown to be accurate, if not almost assuredly true. To say that it lacks credibility because it's "just a theory" would be like saying that the Pythagorean theorem lacks credibility for the same reason. Now, if you said "just a hypothesis", you'd be on to something.
It occurs to me that this bizarre "more beneficial genes" standard falls pretty short of giving a good indication of evolution. Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare two species with a common ancestor, and discovering which has diverged more from the original than to measure how beneficial the developments are? At least that way, you'd be able to show which species had undergone actually more evolution instead of the "more" that is used here, which seems to just mean better, which is hard as hell to show.
Also, the Ursula LeGuin book Lathe of Heaven (admittedly fiction) includes a concept of the sky changing colors from the injection of gases into the air. It's interesting the kinds of predictions one can find from the Sci-fi community about the effects of global warming and the responses to it.
Yeah, the prices are pretty ridiculous (if not the per-month, then the per-day and per-hour). I'm not sure I'd be willing to drop $10 for a day's worth of internet.
While the gaming claim speaks to the programs existing for Linux, it doesn't really speak to the quality or stability of Linux therein. If a really popular but crappy OS has tons of programs made for it, you have just that; A crap OS with tons of programs.
As for the drivers, I've been using the nVidia drivers for some time, and I don't see any difference between them and their Windows counterpart.
While I was testing the longhorn alphas, the driver format had indeed changed. I'd bet dollars to donuts it's not going to support any XP drivers, and that in fact many drivers will have to be completely rewritten.
It's easy to see what they mean, but I think most of us know that a new install of XP can seem shiny and beautiful, but 2 months later, you've got a total piece of crap. This RC hasn't been out for too long, and I doubt they've had the full "Windows dies slowly" experience.
Slashdot Mirror
any logician will assert/concede/stand-completely-baffled-at-any-counter-assertion that inductive evidence could ever be used to logically prove a deduction
Also, I clearly meant but completely mistyped that logicians assert, etc. that inductions can "never" be used as logical proof of deductions.
Of course deductions carry scientific weight, but they don't serve as meaningful evidence and instead as the basis of a hypothesis. The very nature of an axiom in science is that of a logically-unproven premise that, itself, can't be used to scientifically "prove" a concept. Therefore, it's necessary that induction be used to justify a deduction, but any logician will assert/concede/stand-completely-baffled-at-any-counter-assertion that inductive evidence could ever be used to logically prove a deduction. Therefore, the level of "proof" for science, which is to say the level at which it becomes warranted to treat a theory as an axiom, is much less rigorous than the level at which it becomes warranted to treat a deduction as a premise. The assertion that you have to meaningfully "trust" evidence runs counter to the foundations of science is a bit of a misnomer, therefore, as one need not assume that a theory is indefatigably true to build off of it, but to assume that the theory has logical conclusions that can be tested.
I'm certainly not pretending that people were suddenly convinced because of Sputnik that the Earth was round. There were myriad reliable indicators to show us that the Earth is round (horizons, sailing in a straight line around it, high-atmosphere observable curvature, shadows on the moon, etc.), but throwing something into space and watching it circle around several times is something like the final nail in a coffin that had been comfortably nailed shut for some time. This, therefore, is why I chose the analogy of Sputnik to illustrate that stronger support for an already completely uncontentious theory is not the "proof" the article is asserting it is, it's just more strong evidence that agrees with the already-existing strong evidence.
Yeah, but we didn't need to detect proton-proton neutrinos to know that fusion powers the sun, because we have myriad other indicators (spectrum, energy output, solar wind) that agree with the current theory. The fact that we have now seen proton-proton neutrinos is cool as hell, but this will never be "proven" significantly more than it currently is, unless science changes drastically to allow for deductive facts. Science allows for an inductive form of "proof" (something being so probable it will likely never be demonstrated wrong) that's less rigorous than the logical kind, and fusion in the Sun has long been under that label. For analogy, we didn't have to wait until Sputnik had orbited Earth to know that Earth was round (since that was known to academics 2000 years earlier), but it certainly made people feel more confident in that fact when it happened.
Solar Cell efficiency is low, and would likely be ineffective given the limited sun-exposed faces of the aircraft. Using a quantum-dot paint for solar could be viable (they're far more efficient). Secondly, batteries are currently very heavy, which would be a problem. Lightweight, structural batteries would help greatly with that issue. Thirdly, batteries don't really store enough energy currently. Next-generation structural batteries potentially could, but those are some years off. Lastly, the anodes and cathodes of current batteries degrade too quickly. There are upcoming technolgies that can withstand tens of thousands of recharge cycles, but they're all very preliminary. Since planes are expected to have very long life spans, that makes electrical planes currently impractical. Given the above technologies, electrical planes will be very practical within probably 20-30 years. Until then, they are impractical because, logistically speaking, you charge up the plane and, while it's flying, let the solar do all it can to keep the batteries up. The distance the plane can travel, then, is a function of its total stored energy and all of the energy collected from the solar.
Assuming you're not worried about backup speed, you could use a four-bay external hard-drive enclosure in combination with RSYNC and LVM on any linux variety. I don't know if they all do, but the MediaSonic HF2-SU3S2 supports 3TB hard drives per bay, which means that two of them could be used in conjunction to provide 24TB of backup storage. Since you can make a large volume out of the full 24TB using LVM, you could even use something like dd to write to the disk (RSYNC with the archive option would be a better choice though, imho).
The issue with this argument is that they aren't rebroadcasting, they're just directing the signal as a slingbox would. There is exactly one end user unit (could be a person or a household) of the information, and it is not being made publicly available. If I set up a slingbox in my livingroom, it is legal to use that slingbox to consume the signal on another of my devices. What if I set up a slingbox on a roof in Brooklyn and streamed the content to my house in Texas? The only difference between these scenarios is geography. What I see here is the case of a company saying, "Instead of having you own the antenna in Brooklyn, we'll set up the antenna and the tunnel for you, and you can consume it how you wish."
Adversely affect the actual output? Sure. The problem isn't the effectiveness of the output, though, it's the output itself. This may sound ridiculous, but we get enough sunlight that most parts of Earth could positively contribute, especially if much of that land is not biome-valuable. In the cases of Alaska, Texas and the Mojave, we have incredible potential for output, with little-to-no biome detriment.
They've been ignoring geothermal for years, and it's good that they're finally getting into it. There's so little feasible habitable space that it could make a great effect on Alaska. However, they also have the benefit of wide-open plains that, for the most part, won't be adversely affected by more modern solar methods. Alaska is essentially a geo/solar power source that remains fundamentally untapped, and really has a ton of potential.
Indeed, ethics is generally about social relations between people. One could make a case (maybe) that it's immoral to do this, but the only question of ethics I can see here is that of assisting a grieving family.
Vista is typically seen as being pretty memory-hogging to begin with, whereas I've successfully run gutsy with compiz on my EeePC, and it doesn't, even then, have a problem with memory. The article pretty directly says that at the very most, the machine in question was set up to use no more than 87MiB, and out of that it wasn't even using a third.
He's a justice... It's the Judiciary's job to discern violation and correctness of laws. In addition to that, the practice of judicial review is well-ingrained in our justice system, and widely accepted as both legal and appropriate for the checking and balancing of the other two branches.
I thought this almost exactly when I read this. It's nice to see a part of the biggest threat to constitutional liberties finally being acted against. It seems like the Patriot Act has been too successful for too long in accomplishing the point of its name, which seems to be stigmatizing going against it (if you don't like the patriot act, you're unpatriotic, or some other such tripe). Though I'd like to see the whole thing struck down, chipping away at it piece by piece is a very agreeable alternate.
I don't necessarily see the FDA as a bad thing, since most of what they do results in me not dying from botulism. They're right to say that nanotech affects them, as nanotech is likely to go into all of the above-listed things. A bit of accountability would be nice, but I'm not expecting that any time soon from the government of the US. In any case, I just hope they don't screw it up.
I think that home-ground drip coffee makes sufficiently good coffee, as far as opportunity cost is concerned. Some of the other methods make slightly better tasting coffee, but they're also much more intensive. I use one tablespoon of coffee beans for each cup marked on my pot, and I use a burr grinder, as the grounds don't expand nearly as much as with a mill grinder, meaning that I can make more strong coffee per pot. If I make 6 pot-cups with mill-ground coffee, the grounds fill the filter almost to the point of overflowing, and that's with a #4 filter and a 10-pot drip maker. If I instead use burr-ground coffee, the grounds do not expand nearly as much, meaning that I can make a full 10 cups of strong coffee without any risk of the ground overflowing.
Yeah, and both times it was pretty clearly stated that the scientist types didn't think the phenomena were really related. I'm confused as to why this has been reposted.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and shown to be accurate, if not almost assuredly true. To say that it lacks credibility because it's "just a theory" would be like saying that the Pythagorean theorem lacks credibility for the same reason. Now, if you said "just a hypothesis", you'd be on to something.
It occurs to me that this bizarre "more beneficial genes" standard falls pretty short of giving a good indication of evolution. Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare two species with a common ancestor, and discovering which has diverged more from the original than to measure how beneficial the developments are? At least that way, you'd be able to show which species had undergone actually more evolution instead of the "more" that is used here, which seems to just mean better, which is hard as hell to show.
Yeah, it's true, the government has been using child porn to repress civil liberties for years. Hell, just look at Hackers.
Also, the Ursula LeGuin book Lathe of Heaven (admittedly fiction) includes a concept of the sky changing colors from the injection of gases into the air. It's interesting the kinds of predictions one can find from the Sci-fi community about the effects of global warming and the responses to it.
Yeah, the prices are pretty ridiculous (if not the per-month, then the per-day and per-hour). I'm not sure I'd be willing to drop $10 for a day's worth of internet.
I believe it's saying that when this experiment takes place in 2009, this data will be tested.
While the gaming claim speaks to the programs existing for Linux, it doesn't really speak to the quality or stability of Linux therein. If a really popular but crappy OS has tons of programs made for it, you have just that; A crap OS with tons of programs. As for the drivers, I've been using the nVidia drivers for some time, and I don't see any difference between them and their Windows counterpart.
I'd tend to argue that even the GNU Desktop is, on the whole, more stable than any Windows I've seen. Ubuntu being a decent example.
While I was testing the longhorn alphas, the driver format had indeed changed. I'd bet dollars to donuts it's not going to support any XP drivers, and that in fact many drivers will have to be completely rewritten.
It's easy to see what they mean, but I think most of us know that a new install of XP can seem shiny and beautiful, but 2 months later, you've got a total piece of crap. This RC hasn't been out for too long, and I doubt they've had the full "Windows dies slowly" experience.