If you can program with any programming language without understanding every sublayer beneath it, I don't see why you couldn't do the same with DNA without understanding all the physics and chemistry that makes it work.
Absolutely, the person who wrote the code that gave us the result of the same function as the brain would not have to understand all of the underlying layers, but somebody would. You don't have to understand every sublayer beneath a programming language in order to program with it, but somebody among those who wrote the compiler for that programming language that you used had to. Which is the part of the point of the article, we do not yet know what parts of brain function are hardware and what parts are software, let alone how the software interacts with the hardware to produce the results that we see. Actually, several studies indicate that when it comes to the human brain, the hardware/software distinction seems to be rather murky (that is, variations in the physical structure of the brain appear to make changes in the way thought occurs and certain patterns of thought appear to alter the physical structure of the brain in non-trivial ways).
Actually, Politics reporting would be vastly improved if they would report it more like you would like them to report science news. You know instead of "People really seem to like Joe Schmoe's position on TOPIC OF THE DAY. According to the latest poll he is pulling ahead of John Doe after trailing him for the last month," they could say, "Joe Schmoe has released a detailed proposal on TOPIC OF THE DAY. He says that he would propose THIS APPROACH to dealing with this issue. Meanwhile, John Doe has said that while THIS APPROACH might work, it would be much better to take THAT APPROACH." (words in all capitals represent variables that will change from election to election).
If newspapers had started giving detailed reports on the positions politicians take on various issues years ago instead of giving us the same soundbite coverage that television gives us, they might still be viable businesses.
Of course this might have resulted in people who get their news from the newspaper voting for the "wrong" candidate based on the positions he took.
As someone else pointed out, the geographical meaning of "Europe" is a reference to the continent of Europe. Historically, it is only recently that "Europe" had any meaning other than this geographical meaning. While the exact geographical area denoted by the word "Europe" has changed over time, that particular usage of the word goes back to at least Herodotus. Additionally, the modern definition of Europe as a continent is actually based on physical facts.
If this had been modded "Funny" instead of "Interesting". I would have let it pass. However, even if Turkey joins the EU, it will still be in Asia rather than Europe and since this "patent" is for being the "geophysical center of Europe" it would apply to the geographical meaning of Europe, not the political meaning.
If he was mocking Geek Squad, he would have a slam dunk case under U.S. law. I was going to say that he is not. However, I could make a case that even though belittling Geek Squad was not the intention of this project, there is an element of satire in this "God Squad" car (which is a defense against charges of trademark infringement in the U.S.).
Actually, there is quite simply an upper end limit on high end graphics cards. Eventually you will reach a point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. That is, once the various elements reach a certain point (which we are very close to), the human eye is unable to notice the difference between two pictures of differing resolution (and, yes I am aware that one also has to factor in the rate at which the screen can be redrawn, but again, at some point the human eye becomes unable to distinguish). We are not yet at that point, but we are close enough that for more and more people premium video cards do not enhance the experience enough to justify the cost.
When was China "in the yoke"? Russia? Give dates, when did they become part of the American Empire? If they are no longer in the American Empire, when did they gain their independence?
But people don't say, "Hey, I live in Kansas, we should have more wind farms". People are saying, "The U.S. should build wind farms in Kansas." People should look for local solutions to what they perceive as problems. Somebody who lives in New York has no idea what problems might be created by putting wind farms in Kansas (neither do I) and therefore has no idea whether the trade-offs involved in building wind farms in Kansas are really worth it.
So, your post seems to contradict itself. It says that all countries which sell resources for U.S. dollars are members of the American Empire, yet you say that Russia and Belarus are not.
So, according to you, the American Empire consists of Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and all of Europe. except Russia and Belarus?
What about Saudi Arabia? Israel? The various countries of Africa? India? China? They all sell resources to U.S. (and most non-U.S.) companies for U.S. dollars. Are they part of the American Empire?
Your list fails to give me a method to determine if a particular country is in the American Empire or not, unless you are saying that it encompasses the entire world (everyone who sells resources for U.S. dollars).
Please give an example of an Empire other than your purported U.S. Empire that did not tax subject lands.
Also, since you claim the U.S. has an Empire, please give me an idea what "countries" are part of it (I used quotation marks since if they are part of the U.S. Empire, they aren't really countries as we normally use the word)? The list doesn't have to be comprehensive because obviously some areas will be less clear than others, but try to be thorough. For example, you seem to imply that Germany is part of the American Empire, how does that work with Germany being part of the E.U?
Perhaps the problem is that you don't explain to the parents why thier children hitting your house with thier baseballs might cost the parents money? The parents may be unaware that thier children are hitting your house with thier baseballs and the children don't perceive you as a person with the authority to discipline them. Generally with children who are home schooled, the statement by an outside adult that if a behavioral problem continues, thier parents will be informed is amazingly effective.
Actually, since the problem is actually an algebra problem (using non-standard notation), why are they asking it of kids who have not yet been taught algebra?
Using non-algebraic notation does not change the nature of the problem you are asking the students to solve. Algebra was developed in part to make it possible to teach students the concepts that this question is testing the understanding of.
Let's see: "Authentic"/"Genuine", yeah that's analogous; "Klingon"/"Imitation", ok that's not analogous, but both mean something that isn't real; "Opera"/"Leather", yeah those are both real things.
We have an empire in the same sense that the British once had an empire. Sure Britain was democratic, but it still had an empire that reached around the world. So too does the US with bases straddling the globe.
Well... at least until we go bankrupt.
Really, we are collecting taxes from Japan and Germany (to name jsut two of the places where we have some of those globe straddling bases)? For that matter, the militaries of the places that were part of the British Empire, were part of the British military.
No, the current recession is not evidence that tax cuts are bad for the economy. The tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the recession did not start until December of 2007 (according to official, although the traditionally a recession is defined as two or more quarters of negative GDP in a row which would put the start of the recession in the third quarter of 2008). Additionally when you consider that the economy showed marked improvement immediately after the tax cuts took effect, it makes it hard to argue that they harmed the economy.
I would argue that a significant reason that the current economy is as bad as it is is the anticipated tax increases that go into effect January 1st, 2011. A major additional factor is the uncertainty about what regulations will result from the Health care law and the Financial "reform" law. Both of those laws call for masive new regulations of all aspects of our economy and few of those regulations have been written yet.
Actually that would probably be a great idea, for example, "New Jersey a state on the East Coast of the United States that is similar in size and population to Portugal." Such things would go a long way towards helping people understand the differences in scale between countries in Europe and the U.S.. For example, one can look at what Portugal is doing and consider ways to do something similar in New Jersey a state of similar size to Potugal. However it is impractical to consider trying to apply the example of Portugal to the entire Unted States. When one considers both the issues of scale and differing geography there are just too many variables involved to make it work that way.
Can you please cite an historical example of when cutting taxes was bad for the economy, or at least demonstrably not good for the economy? While I will agree that, in theory at least, there may be times that cutting taxes is not good for the economy, saying that "cutting taxes is often not good for the economy" requires that one be able to point to an historical example where this is true.
Neither could train bring bags full of groceries to my doorstep
Most people could quite easily walk to the shops. Obviously there are some people who live 50 miles away from the nearest grocery store, but these are a tiny minority.
What you overlook is that means increased cost of goods. One of the reasons that the grocery stores near me are as inexpensive as they are is because they have to compete with stores further away. Additionally, if you are limited to what you can carry home from the store you are unable to take advantage of sales to stock up on non-perishable goods and thus further save money.
If people were to get outraged whenever people are given special treatment it would be nominally possible. However, since people only get upset when the wealthy get positive special treatment, but actually applaud when the wealthy get negative special treatment the rule of law has broken down.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can program with any programming language without understanding every sublayer beneath it, I don't see why you couldn't do the same with DNA without understanding all the physics and chemistry that makes it work.
Absolutely, the person who wrote the code that gave us the result of the same function as the brain would not have to understand all of the underlying layers, but somebody would. You don't have to understand every sublayer beneath a programming language in order to program with it, but somebody among those who wrote the compiler for that programming language that you used had to. Which is the part of the point of the article, we do not yet know what parts of brain function are hardware and what parts are software, let alone how the software interacts with the hardware to produce the results that we see. Actually, several studies indicate that when it comes to the human brain, the hardware/software distinction seems to be rather murky (that is, variations in the physical structure of the brain appear to make changes in the way thought occurs and certain patterns of thought appear to alter the physical structure of the brain in non-trivial ways).
Because MADD has a goal of making that the legal blood alcohol limit.
But then you knew that already and are fully aware that nobody is suggesting that every single vehicle be equipped with one.
I have seen at least one person on slashdot at one time in the past year suggest just that in all seriousness.
Actually, Politics reporting would be vastly improved if they would report it more like you would like them to report science news. You know instead of "People really seem to like Joe Schmoe's position on TOPIC OF THE DAY. According to the latest poll he is pulling ahead of John Doe after trailing him for the last month," they could say, "Joe Schmoe has released a detailed proposal on TOPIC OF THE DAY. He says that he would propose THIS APPROACH to dealing with this issue. Meanwhile, John Doe has said that while THIS APPROACH might work, it would be much better to take THAT APPROACH." (words in all capitals represent variables that will change from election to election).
If newspapers had started giving detailed reports on the positions politicians take on various issues years ago instead of giving us the same soundbite coverage that television gives us, they might still be viable businesses.
Of course this might have resulted in people who get their news from the newspaper voting for the "wrong" candidate based on the positions he took.
Yes, but that would not change in any way if/when Turkey joined the EU (and it is a very small part of Turkey).
As someone else pointed out, the geographical meaning of "Europe" is a reference to the continent of Europe. Historically, it is only recently that "Europe" had any meaning other than this geographical meaning. While the exact geographical area denoted by the word "Europe" has changed over time, that particular usage of the word goes back to at least Herodotus. Additionally, the modern definition of Europe as a continent is actually based on physical facts.
If this had been modded "Funny" instead of "Interesting". I would have let it pass. However, even if Turkey joins the EU, it will still be in Asia rather than Europe and since this "patent" is for being the "geophysical center of Europe" it would apply to the geographical meaning of Europe, not the political meaning.
If he was mocking Geek Squad, he would have a slam dunk case under U.S. law. I was going to say that he is not. However, I could make a case that even though belittling Geek Squad was not the intention of this project, there is an element of satire in this "God Squad" car (which is a defense against charges of trademark infringement in the U.S.).
Actually, there is quite simply an upper end limit on high end graphics cards. Eventually you will reach a point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. That is, once the various elements reach a certain point (which we are very close to), the human eye is unable to notice the difference between two pictures of differing resolution (and, yes I am aware that one also has to factor in the rate at which the screen can be redrawn, but again, at some point the human eye becomes unable to distinguish). We are not yet at that point, but we are close enough that for more and more people premium video cards do not enhance the experience enough to justify the cost.
When was China "in the yoke"? Russia? Give dates, when did they become part of the American Empire? If they are no longer in the American Empire, when did they gain their independence?
But people don't say, "Hey, I live in Kansas, we should have more wind farms". People are saying, "The U.S. should build wind farms in Kansas." People should look for local solutions to what they perceive as problems. Somebody who lives in New York has no idea what problems might be created by putting wind farms in Kansas (neither do I) and therefore has no idea whether the trade-offs involved in building wind farms in Kansas are really worth it.
So, your post seems to contradict itself. It says that all countries which sell resources for U.S. dollars are members of the American Empire, yet you say that Russia and Belarus are not.
So, according to you, the American Empire consists of Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and all of Europe. except Russia and Belarus? What about Saudi Arabia? Israel? The various countries of Africa? India? China? They all sell resources to U.S. (and most non-U.S.) companies for U.S. dollars. Are they part of the American Empire?
Your list fails to give me a method to determine if a particular country is in the American Empire or not, unless you are saying that it encompasses the entire world (everyone who sells resources for U.S. dollars).
Please give an example of an Empire other than your purported U.S. Empire that did not tax subject lands.
Also, since you claim the U.S. has an Empire, please give me an idea what "countries" are part of it (I used quotation marks since if they are part of the U.S. Empire, they aren't really countries as we normally use the word)? The list doesn't have to be comprehensive because obviously some areas will be less clear than others, but try to be thorough. For example, you seem to imply that Germany is part of the American Empire, how does that work with Germany being part of the E.U?
Because they’re teaching algebra. They just haven’t got to the point of teaching variables yet.
No, they are testing for knowledge of algebra, if they were actually teaching it, the kids would be able to answer the question correctly.
Perhaps the problem is that you don't explain to the parents why thier children hitting your house with thier baseballs might cost the parents money? The parents may be unaware that thier children are hitting your house with thier baseballs and the children don't perceive you as a person with the authority to discipline them. Generally with children who are home schooled, the statement by an outside adult that if a behavioral problem continues, thier parents will be informed is amazingly effective.
Actually, since the problem is actually an algebra problem (using non-standard notation), why are they asking it of kids who have not yet been taught algebra?
Using non-algebraic notation does not change the nature of the problem you are asking the students to solve. Algebra was developed in part to make it possible to teach students the concepts that this question is testing the understanding of.
That wouldn't help me at all as I have never seen either one.
Let's see: "Authentic"/"Genuine", yeah that's analogous; "Klingon"/"Imitation", ok that's not analogous, but both mean something that isn't real; "Opera"/"Leather", yeah those are both real things.
>>>We don't have an "empire"
We have an empire in the same sense that the British once had an empire. Sure Britain was democratic, but it still had an empire that reached around the world. So too does the US with bases straddling the globe.
Well... at least until we go bankrupt.
Really, we are collecting taxes from Japan and Germany (to name jsut two of the places where we have some of those globe straddling bases)? For that matter, the militaries of the places that were part of the British Empire, were part of the British military.
No, the current recession is not evidence that tax cuts are bad for the economy. The tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the recession did not start until December of 2007 (according to official, although the traditionally a recession is defined as two or more quarters of negative GDP in a row which would put the start of the recession in the third quarter of 2008). Additionally when you consider that the economy showed marked improvement immediately after the tax cuts took effect, it makes it hard to argue that they harmed the economy.
I would argue that a significant reason that the current economy is as bad as it is is the anticipated tax increases that go into effect January 1st, 2011. A major additional factor is the uncertainty about what regulations will result from the Health care law and the Financial "reform" law. Both of those laws call for masive new regulations of all aspects of our economy and few of those regulations have been written yet.
Personally, I loved the phrase "Authentic Klingon Opera". Isn't that similar to "Genuine Imitation Leather"?
Actually that would probably be a great idea, for example, "New Jersey a state on the East Coast of the United States that is similar in size and population to Portugal." Such things would go a long way towards helping people understand the differences in scale between countries in Europe and the U.S.. For example, one can look at what Portugal is doing and consider ways to do something similar in New Jersey a state of similar size to Potugal. However it is impractical to consider trying to apply the example of Portugal to the entire Unted States. When one considers both the issues of scale and differing geography there are just too many variables involved to make it work that way.
Can you please cite an historical example of when cutting taxes was bad for the economy, or at least demonstrably not good for the economy? While I will agree that, in theory at least, there may be times that cutting taxes is not good for the economy, saying that "cutting taxes is often not good for the economy" requires that one be able to point to an historical example where this is true.
Most people could quite easily walk to the shops. Obviously there are some people who live 50 miles away from the nearest grocery store, but these are a tiny minority.
What you overlook is that means increased cost of goods. One of the reasons that the grocery stores near me are as inexpensive as they are is because they have to compete with stores further away. Additionally, if you are limited to what you can carry home from the store you are unable to take advantage of sales to stock up on non-perishable goods and thus further save money.
If people were to get outraged whenever people are given special treatment it would be nominally possible. However, since people only get upset when the wealthy get positive special treatment, but actually applaud when the wealthy get negative special treatment the rule of law has broken down.