I disagree. Sending people to Alpha Centauri no. Robotic spacecraft, yes we could totally get something there in a century, or even 50 years. Could we get something there that could send a signal back to us? Maybe not. You'd need to send a pretty big power plant to send a signal back that far for us to catch back here. But sending a probe thats small with a nuclear Orion engine yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Saturn is a piece of cake. But it would be an extremely shitty ride that would serve very little scientific interest other then the effects of prolonged claustrophobic radiation in zero G.
You could do it all for less then 500 Million. For 1 Billion you could do it using better then 4 decades old technology.
The only way to determine if it is fake is to participate in it. Take "The Hunger Games" scenario for example. You can either stay back in your little agenda 21 district and watch it all play out on T.V.
Or you can step up and volunteer to play by the rules set forth. Then you can affect change from within the system. Or get to a point were you can demonstrate to everyone how fake it is.
It is a matter of perception. But the vast majority of people do not want to control their own destiny. Thats the simplest reasoning I can give you.
But I know there are at least a 100,000 more qualified people that will volunteer and do a better job then I on the mission. I imagine a lot of people have not volunteered for that very valid reason. So these look like pretty decent numbers to me, maybe a tiny bit low. But not bad.
Well, if he's not making a profit off of it and sharing it privately its really close to grounds for fair use;) As there is nothing wrong with creating a "digital library" of copywrited works.
The only issue in your senario is that the copy was obtained "illegally". Which is more of a civil matter then a legal one. Since it has more to do with taping something on private property. Or thats how it use to be, I'm sure the guy would be a 50 year federal conviction now.
Youtube definitely says you can't do that so his account could be terminated no problem on their end. Personally thats the worst I would hold him too. If he wants to create a digital library he should pay for it, and the media that goes into it.
This is not socialism. This is the miss application of government to fix problems that are not "ours" to fix. There's a time and place for such things. Their excuse is to penalize internet community to prop up failing retaillers.
They are not taxing us to provide more money to provide anything to the people. The money will most likely go to their super secret spy programs or some other inflated part of the budget.
The idea of taxing one market simply to control another market is absolutely wrong. There are BETTER known solutions. I am not a massively edicated PhD nobel prize winning economist but I have heard lots of professionals talk about the market from multiple standpoints.
The other pitfall is to see this as a purely socialism vs capitalism. It does not work like that.
You can have poorly written code, but a good program.
You can have perfectly written code, but a shoddy bit of software.
Take for example an OS that hangs because the network layer is pegging the CPU somewhere some how.
Vs an OS that continues to be responsive even if the network layer overloaded.
So if they are looking at.69 defect density vs.68 defect density. The community driven software which is designed for an end user vs for a marketing staff to force up-on an end user is going to be close to 100% better.
Thanks I actually understand what you mean. Sciences claim a different method then what religion claims. Sciences method is now much more consistently provable while religious method is based entirely in faith.
Now I understand why people want to hear about that scientific method vs the mumbo jumbo. Becuase thats whats on the table to discuss.
I will certainly agree that there is no scientific basis for needing to meditate on chakras to gain the benifits of better aging through some mechanism of the hypothalamus. Or it could be said thusly: Religion remains unsupported by science and the science remains separate from religion in this case.
I'm probably stumbling around in the dark here. But I hope that might be a legitimate start to understanding what your talking about.
Another thought I had was that scientific methodology could be used to determine what kinds of mumbo jumbo worked best for certain types of people. Psychiatrists try to do this to some degree I think. But they don't want to directly touch or analyze religion unless they are a religious counselor. They usually copypast some kind of ritual or religious idea and then use very clinical and technical words for things. At least the first place I learned about meditation was from a professional psychiatrist. (I am quite aware that I'm not insane enough to be considered insane by normal standards thank you).
And I will be the first to say that method of looking at things can fall flat on its face. I once did see a Catholic priest about my disenfranchisement with the service and he did not help me understand it one bit.
P.S. Thanks for taking the time to share your understanding with me. I feel like I learned from it.
** There's a lot of debate about the virtual nature of consciousness. Cant say how scientific it all is or not though. Some of it does look pretty scientific.
* that also doesn't count that meditating about chakra's as real constructs does not have an effect in the mind as a specific form of meditation... meaning no real chakras but the mind has the power to make such a belief real enough to be measurable, maybe in a scientific way. Through health, were not talking about magical electrical fields or anything.
So define real... science has it's own definitions of "real" and the rest of us do too =)
P.S. Its not crackery, its frackin psychology. Depressed people are stressed and unhappy and fucking commit suicide. Making your self un depressed by changing your perceptions using happy thoughts can work to make you happier. It doesn't require science to work. You can drive your car and take a shit without science.
Lots of unscientific things work.
*I am not saying there's no place for science, science is indeed great, for whatever it is that science does...
Agreed, But I find it ignorant when people discount the previous unscientific work done by humanity out of hand because it is not science. Does it have a specific place in the scientific process of discovering things itself? No, but its a great start.
That's like saying it's completely worthless to apply a method of testing the myriad folk remedies in use before modern chemistry and pharmaceuticals. This has actually been a lucrative means of discovering possible medicines.
Prejudice is bad when applied so unevenly. Science is not about prejudice it's about refining something from an idea and empirical testing and experimentation to form concrete models.
Well I could be wrong. I'm no scientist. Just an ignorant American. I don't even practice scientific methodology and don't have it in memory. I seem to get buy pretty good though and see things that are novel and probably test-able at some point through science though.
Yes. But then some times I have to wait 30 seconds to (or is it too) a minute to click submit. I suppose I could use that time to check my grammar, syntax, spelling etc..
You know I actually do bother to look up the proper way to write. But its extremely hard for me for some reason. Not claiming any kind of special status here just trying to be informative.
In this case "loose" slipped right under the radar. I genuinely thought I had used the correct word.
Slashdot Mirror
Self disqualification is a big part of a voluntary process =)
How can the best people be found if no-one volunteers? I however agree with this.
There is no such thing as emotionally stable people Sheldon =) only terminally delusional people.
Well I imagine most people would come to your conclusion after they tested their theories in the real word. Your welcome =)
I disagree. Sending people to Alpha Centauri no. Robotic spacecraft, yes we could totally get something there in a century, or even 50 years. Could we get something there that could send a signal back to us? Maybe not. You'd need to send a pretty big power plant to send a signal back that far for us to catch back here. But sending a probe thats small with a nuclear Orion engine yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Saturn is a piece of cake. But it would be an extremely shitty ride that would serve very little scientific interest other then the effects of prolonged claustrophobic radiation in zero G.
You could do it all for less then 500 Million. For 1 Billion you could do it using better then 4 decades old technology.
The only way to determine if it is fake is to participate in it. Take "The Hunger Games" scenario for example. You can either stay back in your little agenda 21 district and watch it all play out on T.V.
Or you can step up and volunteer to play by the rules set forth. Then you can affect change from within the system. Or get to a point were you can demonstrate to everyone how fake it is.
It is a matter of perception. But the vast majority of people do not want to control their own destiny. Thats the simplest reasoning I can give you.
But I know there are at least a 100,000 more qualified people that will volunteer and do a better job then I on the mission. I imagine a lot of people have not volunteered for that very valid reason. So these look like pretty decent numbers to me, maybe a tiny bit low. But not bad.
Call of duty sucks and I call shenanigans on anyone cool at google who's been alive for more then 15 years thinking call of duty is any good.
*its a criminal vs civil legal matter, not a legal vs civil matter. * just wanted to tidy this up.
Yes =P
Glad to know Umbrella Corp is diversifying. When can I order my clone of Milla?
Agreed the recent trend is to pay a specific public representative to tell us what they are not ;p
However, We don't know, or "Don't think its that" is a perfectly valid answer =)
Well, if he's not making a profit off of it and sharing it privately its really close to grounds for fair use ;) As there is nothing wrong with creating a "digital library" of copywrited works.
The only issue in your senario is that the copy was obtained "illegally". Which is more of a civil matter then a legal one. Since it has more to do with taping something on private property. Or thats how it use to be, I'm sure the guy would be a 50 year federal conviction now.
Youtube definitely says you can't do that so his account could be terminated no problem on their end. Personally thats the worst I would hold him too. If he wants to create a digital library he should pay for it, and the media that goes into it.
This is not socialism. This is the miss application of government to fix problems that are not "ours" to fix. There's a time and place for such things. Their excuse is to penalize internet community to prop up failing retaillers.
They are not taxing us to provide more money to provide anything to the people. The money will most likely go to their super secret spy programs or some other inflated part of the budget.
The idea of taxing one market simply to control another market is absolutely wrong. There are BETTER known solutions. I am not a massively edicated PhD nobel prize winning economist but I have heard lots of professionals talk about the market from multiple standpoints.
The other pitfall is to see this as a purely socialism vs capitalism. It does not work like that.
You can have poorly written code, but a good program.
You can have perfectly written code, but a shoddy bit of software.
Take for example an OS that hangs because the network layer is pegging the CPU somewhere some how.
Vs an OS that continues to be responsive even if the network layer overloaded.
So if they are looking at .69 defect density vs .68 defect density. The community driven software which is designed for an end user vs for a marketing staff to force up-on an end user is going to be close to 100% better.
All is fair in love and war. =)
I'm going to guess Kabooki without even clicking the link. God damn advertising...
Thanks I actually understand what you mean. Sciences claim a different method then what religion claims. Sciences method is now much more consistently provable while religious method is based entirely in faith.
Now I understand why people want to hear about that scientific method vs the mumbo jumbo. Becuase thats whats on the table to discuss.
I will certainly agree that there is no scientific basis for needing to meditate on chakras to gain the benifits of better aging through some mechanism of the hypothalamus. Or it could be said thusly: Religion remains unsupported by science and the science remains separate from religion in this case.
I'm probably stumbling around in the dark here. But I hope that might be a legitimate start to understanding what your talking about.
Another thought I had was that scientific methodology could be used to determine what kinds of mumbo jumbo worked best for certain types of people. Psychiatrists try to do this to some degree I think. But they don't want to directly touch or analyze religion unless they are a religious counselor. They usually copypast some kind of ritual or religious idea and then use very clinical and technical words for things. At least the first place I learned about meditation was from a professional psychiatrist. (I am quite aware that I'm not insane enough to be considered insane by normal standards thank you).
And I will be the first to say that method of looking at things can fall flat on its face. I once did see a Catholic priest about my disenfranchisement with the service and he did not help me understand it one bit.
P.S. Thanks for taking the time to share your understanding with me. I feel like I learned from it.
** There's a lot of debate about the virtual nature of consciousness. Cant say how scientific it all is or not though. Some of it does look pretty scientific.
* that also doesn't count that meditating about chakra's as real constructs does not have an effect in the mind as a specific form of meditation... meaning no real chakras but the mind has the power to make such a belief real enough to be measurable, maybe in a scientific way. Through health, were not talking about magical electrical fields or anything.
So define real... science has it's own definitions of "real" and the rest of us do too =)
Hehe, yes, according to science ;p But you can let people keep pretending...
Is yoga more effective or less effective when you don't pretend about your chakra's. That could be tested maybe.
Placebo's do work though and that has been tested scientifically =)
No it's to love revenge, and sweet flavors.
KHAAAANNNNNNN!!!!....
P.S. Its not crackery, its frackin psychology. Depressed people are stressed and unhappy and fucking commit suicide. Making your self un depressed by changing your perceptions using happy thoughts can work to make you happier. It doesn't require science to work. You can drive your car and take a shit without science.
Lots of unscientific things work.
*I am not saying there's no place for science, science is indeed great, for whatever it is that science does...
Agreed, But I find it ignorant when people discount the previous unscientific work done by humanity out of hand because it is not science. Does it have a specific place in the scientific process of discovering things itself? No, but its a great start.
That's like saying it's completely worthless to apply a method of testing the myriad folk remedies in use before modern chemistry and pharmaceuticals. This has actually been a lucrative means of discovering possible medicines.
Prejudice is bad when applied so unevenly. Science is not about prejudice it's about refining something from an idea and empirical testing and experimentation to form concrete models.
Well I could be wrong. I'm no scientist. Just an ignorant American. I don't even practice scientific methodology and don't have it in memory. I seem to get buy pretty good though and see things that are novel and probably test-able at some point through science though.
Yes. But then some times I have to wait 30 seconds to (or is it too) a minute to click submit. I suppose I could use that time to check my grammar, syntax, spelling etc..
You know I actually do bother to look up the proper way to write. But its extremely hard for me for some reason. Not claiming any kind of special status here just trying to be informative.
In this case "loose" slipped right under the radar. I genuinely thought I had used the correct word.
haha, I know the humor is at my expense but its just to damn funny not to comment on it =)