Of course she isn't biased or anything. When I read something like this (article) my reactions tend to be "What would the reaction of people be if the sexes were reversed?", i.e. a male saying males were intrinsically better at something than women, or "What would the reaction be if you substituted "whites" and "blacks" for "men" and "women"?
But my final reaction is, what the hell is the point of such a comment in the first place?
We had to pound moose antlers into antelope hide using logs for the pounding... a different antler for every letter too... and don't even get me started about having to chew the hide smooth first or what we had to do for carbon copies.... kids, sheesh, don't know how lucky they got it I tell ya.....
Not only that but text links existed loooooonnnggg before the internet... set the wayback machine to the 1960's and check out the TRAC language and Ted Nelson.
If you say "We are talking X not Y." Then you are making them exclusive."
If we are debating facts, we should be able to avoid politics.
Except that whether or not something is a fact is often a political, or politically influenced, decision. Ask Galileo.
Whether what Al Gore said was true or false, is politics.
Actually, no, that is science because what he said is testable. We know the volume of ice in both icecaps and in all the glaciers etc. around the world. We know the volume of water released if it all melted. We know that that volume of water spread around the planet would raise the height of the oceans a certain amount. and we know that that amount is nowhere near what Gore claimed.
I can't respond to most of the rest of what you said - it seems very fuzzy and ambiguous to me - sorry. Regardless, the idea that science is a process perfectly separate from (big or little "p") political processes is nice but wrong.
Heck, it doesn't even matter if we _are_ the main cause or not. If we're not the main cause, we're still contributing to the problem at least a bit. Personally, I'd rather be the cause - it would imply that we could fix it.
Yes, it does matter. Consider a possibility: we aren't the main cause and the main cause is something else that, given sufficient research etc., we might be able to influence but we invest all our efforts into reducing our contribution and not investigating other possible causes.... then we find out the truth, but by then it is too late to do anything.
Get with the program people. This is science not politics.
Ummm do you really think those two areas are mutually exclusive? Any professor at any university can tell you that isn't true. Although it might only be the ones with tenure who would actually say it out loud.
And the general population isn't competent to judge whether any particular thing being presented as science is actually science and if so whether it is "good" science or "bad" science.
When the UN committee on climate change says "there is no longer any doubt that global warming is caused by humans. Scientists are sure to 90%." That is politics in action. What is that supposed to mean to people? 90% of all climate scientists are 100% sure? 100% of all climate scientists are 90% sure? The certainty level averaged over all climate scientists is 0.90 but some are 1.0 and some are 0.0?
And don't forget the huge (lack of) outcry from the scientific community when Gore made claims like New York would be under 100(?) feet of water if warming continued. Yeah... almost cost him that award.
Whatever is causing global warming the current attitudes about it are anything but scientific, in fact the backlash against "unbelievers" is quite the opposite. BTW whatever happened to the fellow(s) who posited cloud cover generated by gamma rays as a major contributor? Did they get their time at CERN?
Ok, since we're asking physics questions... If there is a physicist around here is one that has been bothering me for a while:D
I'm ok with the concept that light recedes from a source at C, regardless of the velocity of the source. Well.... I'm ok with it as long as I think about clocks and not time, but that's another story.
But afaik that property is reserved for photons and matter behaves as we would expect it to, namely if I'm on something moving at velocity v1 and I throw a ball away at velocity v2 (relative to myself) then the velocity of the object in the frame of reference encompassing myself, the object and an observer, is v1 + v2. And v1+v2 < C must still be true, meaning if I throw the ball in the same direction I'm moving and v1 is near C then I may have to put enormous amounts of energy into it to achieve even a small v2. While if I throw so that v2 is in the opposite direction to my motion, so its net velocity as a fraction of C drops, then it would require less energy to achieve v2. Is that true? Or do I see it recede from me at at the v2 I would expect from Newtonian laws and the energy I put into it, while the observer sees it moving at some other velocity v3?
You're one of those kids that got a cookie even when you were a screaming heathen weren't you. Poor performance != Reward|Apathy
Was that supposed to be a question? The problem is how management could deal with below average performance other than public shaming. Demonstrating that the only alternative you can imagine is to actively reward below average performance... well that says a lot about you and none of it is really very flattering.
Public from most work environments being open these days and from the implications of the comments on attendance the day they were handed out. Humiliation for having it publicly pointed out that you had the worst code in the group.
If someone isn't up to snuff then their manager should talk to them about it in private. Come on, ranking the (perceived) quality of employees work in a way that makes it known to the other employees is just bullying and shaming. If that's the best management technique someone can come up with then they shouldn't be a manager.
I too was amazed by this. When it really struck home was when I went to the supermarket to find some sausages for the barbecue... out of half a dozen brands only one was free of corn syrup/starch. Then I started looking elsewhere.... it is amazing how many places corn syrup, modified corn syrup and corn starch end up.
I agree. What exactly is going on here? Two guys are changing the same piece of source at the same time? Either it's a small piece of code in which case their changes are right next to each other - so having two people doing it seems really stupid, inefficient etc. etc. - or it's a large piece of code in which case it should have been broken up into smaller pieces in the first place. Check out your small module, edit it, check it back in. Multiple simultaneous editing just seems like the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Geez, that's the last thing we (or any country) needs. And the government of the day is what the people of the country elected to power... are you only for democracy when "your" side wins?
Yes, but if bait and switch were actually (as compared to theoretically) illegal it would put every fast-food chain in the world out of business... I mean look at the billboard pictures and then look at what they actually hand you over the counter...
Corporations, unions, and other organizations are not allowed to contribute at all.
Actually I think they are only limited monetarily - they are allowed to donate as much labour as they want. Which can be considerable in many situations.
Yep, I live within a few miles of the production studios for Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, BSG etc. Yet when I turn to TV I'm seeing "new" episodes a year, or even two, after they were aired in the US (and rest of the world too probably). It's laughable that I can download a current episode while my neighbour is watching the "newest" broadcast one which is from one or two seasons ago.
But yeah, I agree occasionally the CRTC does some good. Too bad we can't get Bell users to lay off the downloading for the month Bell tries to collect new stats.... lol.
Now if only the CRTC quit worrying about CanCon and were empowered to regulate cel companies into providing service competitive with the outside world.
I agree - if the facts are as presented then she made a deliberate attempt to inflict emotional damage on an innocent person and should be held responsible for the result. For those who scoff at "emotional" damage consider that it is the root of things like brainwashing, Stockholm syndrome etc.
Or to put it another way, she was a cold hearted sadistic sociopath - why would we want her loose among the rest of us?
And it seems to me there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that said it was ok to think about pedophilic acts just so long as the person didn't try to communicate his/her thoughts to any other person... or it may have been more stringent in that they weren't allowed to write their thoughts down... can't remember now. It's also illegal for two teenagers under the age of consent to videotape their own sex act, even though the act is legal since they are both under-age, because taking pictures or making a movie of minors having sex is illegal even for the minors having sex - can't take pictures of yourself?!?
Since space itself it thought to be composed of discrete "chunks" of a non-zero size, what exactly is a "point structure" and why would you think it has size 0?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course she isn't biased or anything. When I read something like this (article) my reactions tend to be "What would the reaction of people be if the sexes were reversed?", i.e. a male saying males were intrinsically better at something than women, or "What would the reaction be if you substituted "whites" and "blacks" for "men" and "women"?
But my final reaction is, what the hell is the point of such a comment in the first place?
You had typewriters!?!?
We had to pound moose antlers into antelope hide using logs for the pounding... a different antler for every letter too... and don't even get me started about having to chew the hide smooth first or what we had to do for carbon copies.... kids, sheesh, don't know how lucky they got it I tell ya.....
Not only that but text links existed loooooonnnggg before the internet... set the wayback machine to the 1960's and check out the TRAC language and Ted Nelson.
I am not saying they are exclusive.
If you say "We are talking X not Y." Then you are making them exclusive."
If we are debating facts, we should be able to avoid politics.
Except that whether or not something is a fact is often a political, or politically influenced, decision. Ask Galileo.
Whether what Al Gore said was true or false, is politics.
Actually, no, that is science because what he said is testable. We know the volume of ice in both icecaps and in all the glaciers etc. around the world. We know the volume of water released if it all melted. We know that that volume of water spread around the planet would raise the height of the oceans a certain amount. and we know that that amount is nowhere near what Gore claimed.
I can't respond to most of the rest of what you said - it seems very fuzzy and ambiguous to me - sorry. Regardless, the idea that science is a process perfectly separate from (big or little "p") political processes is nice but wrong.
Heck, it doesn't even matter if we _are_ the main cause or not. If we're not the main cause, we're still contributing to the problem at least a bit. Personally, I'd rather be the cause - it would imply that we could fix it.
Yes, it does matter. Consider a possibility: we aren't the main cause and the main cause is something else that, given sufficient research etc., we might be able to influence but we invest all our efforts into reducing our contribution and not investigating other possible causes.... then we find out the truth, but by then it is too late to do anything.
Get with the program people. This is science not politics.
Ummm do you really think those two areas are mutually exclusive? Any professor at any university can tell you that isn't true. Although it might only be the ones with tenure who would actually say it out loud.
And the general population isn't competent to judge whether any particular thing being presented as science is actually science and if so whether it is "good" science or "bad" science.
When the UN committee on climate change says "there is no longer any doubt that global warming is caused by humans. Scientists are sure to 90%." That is politics in action. What is that supposed to mean to people? 90% of all climate scientists are 100% sure? 100% of all climate scientists are 90% sure? The certainty level averaged over all climate scientists is 0.90 but some are 1.0 and some are 0.0?
And don't forget the huge (lack of) outcry from the scientific community when Gore made claims like New York would be under 100(?) feet of water if warming continued. Yeah... almost cost him that award.
Whatever is causing global warming the current attitudes about it are anything but scientific, in fact the backlash against "unbelievers" is quite the opposite. BTW whatever happened to the fellow(s) who posited cloud cover generated by gamma rays as a major contributor? Did they get their time at CERN?
Thanks for the link! And I've missed preview a couple of times myself ;)
Ok, since we're asking physics questions... If there is a physicist around here is one that has been bothering me for a while :D
I'm ok with the concept that light recedes from a source at C, regardless of the velocity of the source. Well.... I'm ok with it as long as I think about clocks and not time, but that's another story.
But afaik that property is reserved for photons and matter behaves as we would expect it to, namely if I'm on something moving at velocity v1 and I throw a ball away at velocity v2 (relative to myself) then the velocity of the object in the frame of reference encompassing myself, the object and an observer, is v1 + v2. And v1+v2 < C must still be true, meaning if I throw the ball in the same direction I'm moving and v1 is near C then I may have to put enormous amounts of energy into it to achieve even a small v2. While if I throw so that v2 is in the opposite direction to my motion, so its net velocity as a fraction of C drops, then it would require less energy to achieve v2. Is that true? Or do I see it recede from me at at the v2 I would expect from Newtonian laws and the energy I put into it, while the observer sees it moving at some other velocity v3?
You're one of those kids that got a cookie even when you were a screaming heathen weren't you. Poor performance != Reward|Apathy
Was that supposed to be a question? The problem is how management could deal with below average performance other than public shaming. Demonstrating that the only alternative you can imagine is to actively reward below average performance... well that says a lot about you and none of it is really very flattering.
Public from most work environments being open these days and from the implications of the comments on attendance the day they were handed out. Humiliation for having it publicly pointed out that you had the worst code in the group.
If someone isn't up to snuff then their manager should talk to them about it in private. Come on, ranking the (perceived) quality of employees work in a way that makes it known to the other employees is just bullying and shaming. If that's the best management technique someone can come up with then they shouldn't be a manager.
That's a very defensible position. I hope you don't drive a car since that would force the rest of us to breath in the tailpipe emissions.
I too was amazed by this. When it really struck home was when I went to the supermarket to find some sausages for the barbecue... out of half a dozen brands only one was free of corn syrup/starch. Then I started looking elsewhere.... it is amazing how many places corn syrup, modified corn syrup and corn starch end up.
I agree. What exactly is going on here? Two guys are changing the same piece of source at the same time? Either it's a small piece of code in which case their changes are right next to each other - so having two people doing it seems really stupid, inefficient etc. etc. - or it's a large piece of code in which case it should have been broken up into smaller pieces in the first place. Check out your small module, edit it, check it back in. Multiple simultaneous editing just seems like the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Wow. Really. You publicly humiliate a person each week? What a management style! I think it's called being an asshole.
real politicians
Geez, that's the last thing we (or any country) needs. And the government of the day is what the people of the country elected to power... are you only for democracy when "your" side wins?
Yes, but if bait and switch were actually (as compared to theoretically) illegal it would put every fast-food chain in the world out of business... I mean look at the billboard pictures and then look at what they actually hand you over the counter...
Corporations, unions, and other organizations are not allowed to contribute at all.
Actually I think they are only limited monetarily - they are allowed to donate as much labour as they want. Which can be considerable in many situations.
Yep, I live within a few miles of the production studios for Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, BSG etc. Yet when I turn to TV I'm seeing "new" episodes a year, or even two, after they were aired in the US (and rest of the world too probably). It's laughable that I can download a current episode while my neighbour is watching the "newest" broadcast one which is from one or two seasons ago.
But yeah, I agree occasionally the CRTC does some good. Too bad we can't get Bell users to lay off the downloading for the month Bell tries to collect new stats.... lol.
Now if only the CRTC quit worrying about CanCon and were empowered to regulate cel companies into providing service competitive with the outside world.
No, they mean that time is not like a solid line, it is more like a dotted line, each dot being a moment in time.
Time is a myth, or at best a misconception. Time? Just say no!
Clocks on the other hand are very real but have nothing to do with time.
Don't get hung up on time... it's just an illusion, not real at all. Now clocks on the other hand, they exist.
I agree - if the facts are as presented then she made a deliberate attempt to inflict emotional damage on an innocent person and should be held responsible for the result. For those who scoff at "emotional" damage consider that it is the root of things like brainwashing, Stockholm syndrome etc.
Or to put it another way, she was a cold hearted sadistic sociopath - why would we want her loose among the rest of us?
If you really want protection from typecasting then UTM(*) is the language you want to use!
(*)Universal Turing Machine
Or anything pornographic.
And it seems to me there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that said it was ok to think about pedophilic acts just so long as the person didn't try to communicate his/her thoughts to any other person... or it may have been more stringent in that they weren't allowed to write their thoughts down... can't remember now. It's also illegal for two teenagers under the age of consent to videotape their own sex act, even though the act is legal since they are both under-age, because taking pictures or making a movie of minors having sex is illegal even for the minors having sex - can't take pictures of yourself?!?
Did anyone see the movie, with Patrick Stewart, "Safe House?"
I don't know if it ever played in theatres - I found it in the bargain bin at a walmart - too bad, I thought it was a great little movie.
Since space itself it thought to be composed of discrete "chunks" of a non-zero size, what exactly is a "point structure" and why would you think it has size 0?