Yeah, why did they have to use the word theory when it's meaning is such crap in normal usage. they should use something else, like: "It's not a theory, it goes beyond being a theory, it's not a fact, it goes beyond being a fact, it's a Hyperpombpluum!"
The geeks who use the term on themselves do it because it symbolises their devotion to some hobby they find quaint and not something which is enjoyed by the masses.
The people who refer to other people as geeks use it because they are socially ingrained into their current hobbies, which have to be and are mass-approved as "normal" hobbies.
In my view, any expert knowledge which you have on a subject which you have where you don't have to look things up, because you know it so well (obscure d&d mechanics, obscure characters in a manga, obscure football details, obscure baseball details, obscure chess details, obscure poems, obscure fortran references, obscure opera details, obscure golfer details, obscure olympics details) - should stamp you as a geek, and guess what, it should be praiseworthy because it's the human condition to know and learn and love a meme so much that you become an expert on it, even if it's just something stupid like the friends series, or the governing of a country.
In regards to the OP, the people who wish to be on the outside and remain there, that's more nerds than geeks, and that's not because they want to be different, it's because they don't like people poking into their hobby as they are socially unfriendly to begin with.
I find myself wanting to reply to discourage you from replying in this form ever again. A list like yours is as stupid as a reply with list of a person's favorite "my little pony" characters.
If you could cite a source or give some firm background as to why your opinion is relevant, then that's another matter, but you're just spewing crap you thought up in your sad little brain and wasting peoples' time. You're like the pundits on Fox News in this regard.
FACT: The fact that you can find "other reasons" just by thinking out loud in no shape or form has any validity as a response.
I hope you never ever waste another persons time ever again, but even if you do, my opinion of you will still be "lower than filth".
You're reading too much into this from your own perspective.
Your perspective is that you have an intelligent, but out of control individual, you're assuming all individuals who lack self-control are the same as the individual you know, and that if only the needs of these individuals are met, everyone would be better.
The thing is.. and this is the big thing.. individuals who are just as intelligent, but do not lack self-control have more control over their lives in the future.
It's the difference between being intelligent, finding school boring and lashing out at the environment because you're bored, or being intelligent, finding school boring, but enduring that anyway and taking what you can from it.
In your case, I'd try and develop the kids self-control. Intelligence is a fine tool to cut through obstacles, but self-control is the tool to cleave mountains.
Most of these storylines people come up with aren't what a true sequel should be like, and sadly matrix 3 didn't "get" that.
Look.. the first Matrix was about alienation of the human spirit within current society, they just took a rather good twist regarding making that alienation we all feel sometimes mean that it's you realizing that your whole world isn't what it really is, i.e. what if it's a simulation? What would happen if someone realized and actually got out?
This is why the first movie is excellent, because within that framework of "discovery" - they nail down the elements pretty well. The second and third movie failed because it's no longer about the human condition, just a slug-fest in trying to save some city which we have no real emotional interest in, and how? by destruction of course.
They would have made a lot better movie if they had solved the conflict with Neo in the end becoming the Matrix, and thus becoming the architect, and overtaking it as the main operator for the whole matrix, and not to destroy it, but to be the catalyst of peace between machines and humans, sounds corny, but surrender of ideals on both sides between 2 opposing parties bent on mutual extinction is the only way out of such a conflict.
So 2 and 3 suffered for its religious and prophetic propaganda, and the only way they could have made it work, is if Neo himself had made the twist be that prophets only spout their own wishes for the future, you have to make your own based on your own beliefs. Sadly this didn't happen.
The thing is, if you make "action" in the action film become the sole purpose of a film, you'll make bad script choices, no matter who you are. I believe any more matrix movies will be horribly vapid in this regard.
That means some people see colours when they hear music because there's a link between audio and visual, other feel motion because they have a link between audio and motion.
Of course there are people who don't have any extraneous connections to other areas, not saying we're all synesthetics.
I think it's interesting that even though the areas are different, consonance and dissonance are interpreted quite similarly, i.e. "bad colours" or "bad motion" when dissonance is involved.
So yeah, regarding the OP, music is how you interpret it, but there's always some common ground we all agree on (i.e. Justin Bieber is shit.)
1) it should mean that you could technically open the file in notepad and read what it says - I tried saving a word XML file and opening it in notepad, and I could read it, this means that yes, you're data isn't locked into some arbitrary machine code no one can read but Mr. word 95, and if that's possible, then great, technicalities aside, anyone can create a "convert OoXML to HTML/PDF" if they so desire.
2) if you're already comfortable within the MS Office environment, you can stay in that comfortable place.
It's a gamble.. i.e. a game, and the game mechanic is, you invest a small sum of your money to gain a chance at a large sum, she got that large sum, and in this case she got the cash because of a random effect from a software error.
It's their equipment, their responsibility that this doesn't happen _before_ it happens, it did, they should have payed her.
You're probably wrong as this emulates a keyboard, so probably in the driver you map what button on this thing is what button on a regular keyboard, and then you map commands in your game to those regular keyboard keys.
So no real need for games to specifically support this, it'll work for everything right out of the box.
I'm pretty saddened by people like you who spout "you can't scientifically prove a negative!" as somekind of a reason why science can't be used in examples like these, you aren't a scientist if you truly think that this statement applies here.
The thing is to ask yourself in this situation is: 1) what's being reported? - ghosts 2) what's the evidence so far? - name specific REAL evidence which people are sensing 3) based on the reported evidence, what other factors could it possible be (changes in heat, gusts of wind, movement of people) 4) set up an experiment which can either prove that it's a natural occurence or disprove it.
This is certainly a case of a man willing to go some lengths to understand what's going on with his house, and you figuratively spit in his face..
People forget that science can easily prove that there are no ghosts in that particular house, but the next house, who knows?
So yes, it's technically right that "YOU CAN'T PROVE A BLARGHARGHARAHGHGHGHH!" But it's so wrong here, so very, very, very wrong that you can't take a certain incident like this and prove or disprove what's happening based on the evidence.
---
In reply to the OP:
"My first question is what sorts of tools or measurements would make for sensible metrics to test during a hunt?"
- well, I would start with gathering the evidence, what are the particulars of the evidence in question? where in the house is it, is it random, or regular?
"The second question is what kinds of results would it take to be 'interesting'? Baseline readings at several presumably non-haunted locations seem to be obvious requirements for comparison."
- no that wouldn't be the best solution, what you want to do is to explain the origin of the evidence, not compare one house to another, so based on the evidence, you have to brainstorm everything that it could possibly be (not really that many options unless you start naming all the shoe elves [don't forget Nick if you do, he hates that]), then set up gadgets which help you to remove the possible candidates until only one stands out (Ghosts!;) )
"Once you have those, what kinds of results would it take to convince a skeptic there's something unusual going on, or demonstrate that there's not? I don't have much hope of changing the minds of those who believe, but it would be satisfying to at least be scientific about it."
- this is pretty mundane if you think about it, most likely there's some sounds aorund which people can't explain, so here's what you do: 1) you want to find out where it's originating from, if you can't find the source based on hearsay, you have to set up somekind of a multiple sound recording which has accurate and synchronised time so you can calculate distance from the sound, thus triangulate to the origin within the house. 2) once you find the origin(s) check for possible explanations, temperature changes (or other atmospheric changes like pressure, winds and so on), movement of people, toilet flushings (or other pipe-related), electrical appliances. 3) then just go about removing or confirming what's going on.
Sound from weather should correlate within some error margin to the weather outside, so you can measure temperature both inside close to the origin and outside, pressure as well, winds could be directionally based or based on strength and so on. Sound from movement of people needs to be correlated with evidence where the person heard the noise, not only where the origin is and what s/he was doing and if there were others in the house as well.
Of course if the evidence is a ghostly visage of a man called Bob who likes to sit in his favorite chair so much he didn't want to leave and talks incessantly about them old days, just park a camera infront of the chair and interview the guy.
That's why it should be illegal to do it without a warrant.
Police officers can and will use anything and everything they find whether it matters or not, and stuff that doesn't matter will probably get you sentenced.
There's reasons why you shouldn't talk to police, and there's reasons why they shouldn't get free use of your phone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc - it's long, but worth it.
Try and make them post the data online like nasa does, if someone picks something up like this man did, it will be for the better, and might even make for better algorithms.
And your counter claim is as disingenuous because the real answer is : we don't know if the 3 intervening years matter or not, but from their comments it seems to be 9 months since they started cracking it.
Why can't people just state/accept the facts instead of spouting off their own fictitious opinions/lies which are based on.. nothing.
People won't detrain their normal viewing of the world with 3d TVs, they'll train themselves in seeing 3d from screens as an extra on top of their training in 3d in real life.
What we have here is a young man intent on proving his manhood by doing something brave infront of other men.
This has been done by young men throughout the ages, and if done successfully, will get you laid or a status increase with your peers. It's a gamble though, as is shown with bullfighting in Spain, to give a slight example of ingrained manhood theatrics.
I think it's delightful that the guy remembered Frogger when attempting this, as this behaviour is normal bravado, the busy streets are close by and available as a challenge for a young (stupid) man, the connection to frogger was probably while he was looking at this as an option to show his manliness.
But you go ahead and blame frogger, and not this man's inherent need to show off.
There's no magical umbrella flying fairy godmother out there who'll do that. Normal people have to implement what they themselves want. If you want great teachers and co-teachers, then go ahead, make yourself available and dedicate yourself to the standard you'd like to see from teachers.
No.. Philosophy means questioning the human condition. it's confronting the status quo and asking "why?"
So exactly the opposite in every way of what you think it is.
You're also wrong in your assumption that philosophy and technocracy are mutually exclusive, in fact if they aren't mutually inclusive, then as a technocrat you're trying to find solutions when you don't even know what the problem is.
Philosophy is a very powerful way of thinking, and in no way whatsoever does it represent conformity or acceptance, it represents freedom of thought to think critically.
In fact philosophy really should be tought in schools, it's the basis of how we view the world today, and if the future is bright, it will be philosophy to thank and the people who dared to question the status quo.
I believe that it is a priviledge to drive a car, a priviledge which bears the responsibility that you drive safely because as you say, it's a couple of tons of steel which can seriously hurt and maim people (people in cars kills more people than terrorist dontcherknow)
I also think adding a sound effect to cars is a bad idea. roads are meant for cars, and although drivers are supposed to be watchful of any/all traffic, if you're a pedestrian crossing a road, you bear responsibility in doing so safely as well.
Cars today are quite quiet anyway, and we'll all get used to hearing just the tiresound rather than the already quiet engine sound as well.
- because when it's your fault that someone else can locate, monitor and collect wireless data from your router, it's best to blame someone else, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to read more about this. Do you have a newsletter you can link to perchance?
Hmmm..
Can you name a clear example of power without oversight which didn't lead to abuse and corruption? I'd be interested in some examples.
Yeah, why did they have to use the word theory when it's meaning is such crap in normal usage. they should use something else, like: "It's not a theory, it goes beyond being a theory, it's not a fact, it goes beyond being a fact, it's a Hyperpombpluum!"
The geeks who use the term on themselves do it because it symbolises their devotion to some hobby they find quaint and not something which is enjoyed by the masses.
The people who refer to other people as geeks use it because they are socially ingrained into their current hobbies, which have to be and are mass-approved as "normal" hobbies.
In my view, any expert knowledge which you have on a subject which you have where you don't have to look things up, because you know it so well (obscure d&d mechanics, obscure characters in a manga, obscure football details, obscure baseball details, obscure chess details, obscure poems, obscure fortran references, obscure opera details, obscure golfer details, obscure olympics details) - should stamp you as a geek, and guess what, it should be praiseworthy because it's the human condition to know and learn and love a meme so much that you become an expert on it, even if it's just something stupid like the friends series, or the governing of a country.
In regards to the OP, the people who wish to be on the outside and remain there, that's more nerds than geeks, and that's not because they want to be different, it's because they don't like people poking into their hobby as they are socially unfriendly to begin with.
I always understood that a litre of water was almost exactly 1kg, and was also 1dm^3
- Why not just switch the measurements of 1kg to 1dm^3 of water at 4C?
I find myself wanting to reply to discourage you from replying in this form ever again. A list like yours is as stupid as a reply with list of a person's favorite "my little pony" characters.
If you could cite a source or give some firm background as to why your opinion is relevant, then that's another matter, but you're just spewing crap you thought up in your sad little brain and wasting peoples' time. You're like the pundits on Fox News in this regard.
FACT: The fact that you can find "other reasons" just by thinking out loud in no shape or form has any validity as a response.
I hope you never ever waste another persons time ever again, but even if you do, my opinion of you will still be "lower than filth".
Yes.. because a persons' definition of something means that "something" is valueless doesn't it?
You're reading too much into this from your own perspective.
Your perspective is that you have an intelligent, but out of control individual, you're assuming all individuals who lack self-control are the same as the individual you know, and that if only the needs of these individuals are met, everyone would be better.
The thing is.. and this is the big thing.. individuals who are just as intelligent, but do not lack self-control have more control over their lives in the future.
It's the difference between being intelligent, finding school boring and lashing out at the environment because you're bored, or being intelligent, finding school boring, but enduring that anyway and taking what you can from it.
In your case, I'd try and develop the kids self-control. Intelligence is a fine tool to cut through obstacles, but self-control is the tool to cleave mountains.
Most of these storylines people come up with aren't what a true sequel should be like, and sadly matrix 3 didn't "get" that.
Look.. the first Matrix was about alienation of the human spirit within current society, they just took a rather good twist regarding making that alienation we all feel sometimes mean that it's you realizing that your whole world isn't what it really is, i.e. what if it's a simulation? What would happen if someone realized and actually got out?
This is why the first movie is excellent, because within that framework of "discovery" - they nail down the elements pretty well. The second and third movie failed because it's no longer about the human condition, just a slug-fest in trying to save some city which we have no real emotional interest in, and how? by destruction of course.
They would have made a lot better movie if they had solved the conflict with Neo in the end becoming the Matrix, and thus becoming the architect, and overtaking it as the main operator for the whole matrix, and not to destroy it, but to be the catalyst of peace between machines and humans, sounds corny, but surrender of ideals on both sides between 2 opposing parties bent on mutual extinction is the only way out of such a conflict.
So 2 and 3 suffered for its religious and prophetic propaganda, and the only way they could have made it work, is if Neo himself had made the twist be that prophets only spout their own wishes for the future, you have to make your own based on your own beliefs. Sadly this didn't happen.
The thing is, if you make "action" in the action film become the sole purpose of a film, you'll make bad script choices, no matter who you are. I believe any more matrix movies will be horribly vapid in this regard.
That's just one take on music, it all depends on how your brain is wired.
it's basically that we all have some type of synesthesia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia where parts of the brain link up.
That means some people see colours when they hear music because there's a link between audio and visual, other feel motion because they have a link between audio and motion.
Of course there are people who don't have any extraneous connections to other areas, not saying we're all synesthetics.
I think it's interesting that even though the areas are different, consonance and dissonance are interpreted quite similarly, i.e. "bad colours" or "bad motion" when dissonance is involved.
So yeah, regarding the OP, music is how you interpret it, but there's always some common ground we all agree on (i.e. Justin Bieber is shit.)
the OOXML format does 2 things..
1) it should mean that you could technically open the file in notepad and read what it says - I tried saving a word XML file and opening it in notepad, and I could read it, this means that yes, you're data isn't locked into some arbitrary machine code no one can read but Mr. word 95, and if that's possible, then great, technicalities aside, anyone can create a "convert OoXML to HTML/PDF" if they so desire.
2) if you're already comfortable within the MS Office environment, you can stay in that comfortable place.
It's a gamble.. i.e. a game, and the game mechanic is, you invest a small sum of your money to gain a chance at a large sum, she got that large sum, and in this case she got the cash because of a random effect from a software error.
It's their equipment, their responsibility that this doesn't happen _before_ it happens, it did, they should have payed her.
You're probably wrong as this emulates a keyboard, so probably in the driver you map what button on this thing is what button on a regular keyboard, and then you map commands in your game to those regular keyboard keys.
So no real need for games to specifically support this, it'll work for everything right out of the box.
I'm pretty saddened by people like you who spout "you can't scientifically prove a negative!" as somekind of a reason why science can't be used in examples like these, you aren't a scientist if you truly think that this statement applies here.
People were able to disprove Luminiferous aether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether - why not ghosts?
The thing is to ask yourself in this situation is:
1) what's being reported? - ghosts
2) what's the evidence so far? - name specific REAL evidence which people are sensing
3) based on the reported evidence, what other factors could it possible be (changes in heat, gusts of wind, movement of people)
4) set up an experiment which can either prove that it's a natural occurence or disprove it.
This is certainly a case of a man willing to go some lengths to understand what's going on with his house, and you figuratively spit in his face..
People forget that science can easily prove that there are no ghosts in that particular house, but the next house, who knows?
So yes, it's technically right that "YOU CAN'T PROVE A BLARGHARGHARAHGHGHGHH!" But it's so wrong here, so very, very, very wrong that you can't take a certain incident like this and prove or disprove what's happening based on the evidence.
---
In reply to the OP:
"My first question is what sorts of tools or measurements would make for sensible metrics to test during a hunt?"
- well, I would start with gathering the evidence, what are the particulars of the evidence in question? where in the house is it, is it random, or regular?
"The second question is what kinds of results would it take to be 'interesting'? Baseline readings at several presumably non-haunted locations seem to be obvious requirements for comparison."
- no that wouldn't be the best solution, what you want to do is to explain the origin of the evidence, not compare one house to another, so based on the evidence, you have to brainstorm everything that it could possibly be (not really that many options unless you start naming all the shoe elves [don't forget Nick if you do, he hates that]), then set up gadgets which help you to remove the possible candidates until only one stands out (Ghosts! ;) )
"Once you have those, what kinds of results would it take to convince a skeptic there's something unusual going on, or demonstrate that there's not? I don't have much hope of changing the minds of those who believe, but it would be satisfying to at least be scientific about it."
- this is pretty mundane if you think about it, most likely there's some sounds aorund which people can't explain, so here's what you do:
1) you want to find out where it's originating from, if you can't find the source based on hearsay, you have to set up somekind of a multiple sound recording which has accurate and synchronised time so you can calculate distance from the sound, thus triangulate to the origin within the house.
2) once you find the origin(s) check for possible explanations, temperature changes (or other atmospheric changes like pressure, winds and so on), movement of people, toilet flushings (or other pipe-related), electrical appliances.
3) then just go about removing or confirming what's going on.
Sound from weather should correlate within some error margin to the weather outside, so you can measure temperature both inside close to the origin and outside, pressure as well, winds could be directionally based or based on strength and so on.
Sound from movement of people needs to be correlated with evidence where the person heard the noise, not only where the origin is and what s/he was doing and if there were others in the house as well.
Of course if the evidence is a ghostly visage of a man called Bob who likes to sit in his favorite chair so much he didn't want to leave and talks incessantly about them old days, just park a camera infront of the chair and interview the guy.
Good luck :)
That's why it should be illegal to do it without a warrant.
Police officers can and will use anything and everything they find whether it matters or not, and stuff that doesn't matter will probably get you sentenced.
There's reasons why you shouldn't talk to police, and there's reasons why they shouldn't get free use of your phone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc - it's long, but worth it.
Try and make them post the data online like nasa does, if someone picks something up like this man did, it will be for the better, and might even make for better algorithms.
your personal comfort and blood clots be damned
I just wanted to tell you the bloodclot problem is because of the bad air conditioning, not from lack of movement. see here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060517084330.htm
So it is entirely the whole industrys fault for reducing the quality of air, because the risk is real, and they're not doing anything about it.
I wanted to find a link to the "quite interesting" clip with this information, but couldn't find it.. Google failed me :(
And your counter claim is as disingenuous because the real answer is : we don't know if the 3 intervening years matter or not, but from their comments it seems to be 9 months since they started cracking it.
Why can't people just state/accept the facts instead of spouting off their own fictitious opinions/lies which are based on.. nothing.
This isn't a problem just because you "think" it's a problem.
The brain can train itself to deal with changes in perception almost instantly.
Even when you do something stupid like turn everything upside down http://wearcam.org/tetherless/node4.html the brain just makes it work right again.
People won't detrain their normal viewing of the world with 3d TVs, they'll train themselves in seeing 3d from screens as an extra on top of their training in 3d in real life.
What we have here is a young man intent on proving his manhood by doing something brave infront of other men.
This has been done by young men throughout the ages, and if done successfully, will get you laid or a status increase with your peers. It's a gamble though, as is shown with bullfighting in Spain, to give a slight example of ingrained manhood theatrics.
I think it's delightful that the guy remembered Frogger when attempting this, as this behaviour is normal bravado, the busy streets are close by and available as a challenge for a young (stupid) man, the connection to frogger was probably while he was looking at this as an option to show his manliness.
But you go ahead and blame frogger, and not this man's inherent need to show off.
.... and lived happily ever after.
I just felt it need an ending.. this one or the classic: "ah now I can watch tv for the rest of eternity *eyglasses break* no.. noo... WHYYYYYYY!"
Pick the one you like.
How about _you_ go out there and do that?
There's no magical umbrella flying fairy godmother out there who'll do that. Normal people have to implement what they themselves want. If you want great teachers and co-teachers, then go ahead, make yourself available and dedicate yourself to the standard you'd like to see from teachers.
Otherwise, sit down and shut up.
Philosophy means you accept the human condition.
No.. Philosophy means questioning the human condition. it's confronting the status quo and asking "why?"
So exactly the opposite in every way of what you think it is.
You're also wrong in your assumption that philosophy and technocracy are mutually exclusive, in fact if they aren't mutually inclusive, then as a technocrat you're trying to find solutions when you don't even know what the problem is.
Philosophy is a very powerful way of thinking, and in no way whatsoever does it represent conformity or acceptance, it represents freedom of thought to think critically.
In fact philosophy really should be tought in schools, it's the basis of how we view the world today, and if the future is bright, it will be philosophy to thank and the people who dared to question the status quo.
I believe that it is a priviledge to drive a car, a priviledge which bears the responsibility that you drive safely because as you say, it's a couple of tons of steel which can seriously hurt and maim people (people in cars kills more people than terrorist dontcherknow)
I also think adding a sound effect to cars is a bad idea. roads are meant for cars, and although drivers are supposed to be watchful of any/all traffic, if you're a pedestrian crossing a road, you bear responsibility in doing so safely as well.
Cars today are quite quiet anyway, and we'll all get used to hearing just the tiresound rather than the already quiet engine sound as well.
"people are PISSED"
- because when it's your fault that someone else can locate, monitor and collect wireless data from your router, it's best to blame someone else, right?
People are STUPID.