I would still trust cannabis, coca, salvia divinorum, opium poppy, psilocybin mushrooms and countless plants and other things with natural drug properties that humanity itself has evolved with, tried and tested over the millennia, before I would trust in the crap mankind has created in labs, with only decades at the most of highly limited testing (a few centuries in some cases).
Scientists in 1945 : Don't drop an atomic bomb on Japan, it is very dangerous.
US powers that be : Do you have any historical examples?
Scientists : No, this is the first time someone has developed an atomic bomb. We have documented the amount and the speed with which heat will be released, not to mention the nasty radioactive stuff.
USPTB : Right, so it's never happened in all of history. But self proclaimed "futurologists"/physicists, that's more of self marketing men says it's going to happen soon, and you can profit (fame) from it, so it must be true.
When Darwin published his work, the shock was NOT that Genesis wasn't true, they already knew that. The shock was that nature was nasty
There wasn't any such shock.
What do you mean "They" ? Less than 0.1 percent of the world's population was even interested. Of them, large proportion equated God and Nature. Story of Job proved that God could be nasty. So Nature being nasty is not even a surprise.
Anyone denied any privilege feels "life isn't fair". Just another way of saying God/Nature is nasty.
Humans don't come with knowledge included either. They either obtain it through other people's research, or through self research. Machines could do both of these too; and post singularity, better than humans.
Cheap $500 robot can build 2000 more robots. But singularity doesn't guarantee building 2000 more robots from thin air. It would need raw materials. Given the enormous value of robots, price of raw materials would increase. $500 robot not so cheap any more. Eventually it leads to the mining land price rise.
Similarly , 2000 robots can farm, but not without land. Agricultural land prices will increase.
And anyway, given the rate of rise in wealth disparity, the mega - corporations would own all the robots. Technology will be patented, with trillions in lobbying spent to deny the same robots to proletariat. So there is no question of an individual "working", because no one but the corporations will be able to work.
Willpower can be improved like anything else and I argue that we look at willpower as a quality that with sufficient improvement will overcome the challenge
Yes, and guess what one needs to improve this willpower? Willpower. A deadlock if ever I saw one.
In fact these two addons compliment each other. Using only Noscript, it is difficult to allow JavaScript but yet block flash from a page. Enter flashblock, problem solved.
As JavaScript is typically more trustworthy than flash, the converse goal of allowing flash but not JavaScript is less practical. And websites want to run some scripts to embed the flash, so it is less technically feasible too.
When Noscript blocks scripts on the page, it blocks flash too. So the only time when flashblock doesn't work is when it isn't needed. Flashblock and Noscript are only incompatible if the intention is a theoretical one of "running" flashblock. If the intention is a practical one of blocking unwanted flash, I see no incompatibility.
Some would start losing muscle and/or immunity faster than they lose fat. That could turn ugly at some point far before they reach in the ballpark of healthy weight.
NoScript helps against javascript, java, flash, silverlight, font-face, webGL, audio/video, and more. Oracle Corporation is unable to see the future. Apple Computer Inc. is not a big fruit, nor a fruit flavoured computer. Get over the obsession with names.
Even with Intel, the requirement of touchscreen is just to use the trademark "ultrabook". Laptops with AMD processors cannot use that trademark anyway, so just this requirement of touchscreen won't drive any exodus to AMD processors.
Yes, we should evaluate the minutest atoms of the research paper in each subject and I did mention "parts" of papers being scientific or not.
Now onto fairies , I did a complete scientific treatment if you read the post. There is absolutely no supernatural going on there.
Hypothesis : fairies in water make plants grow. Test : water plants, plants grow, don't water plants no grow. (Tester is ignorant about nutrients in soil/water). Conclusion : Fairies exist. Notably, no other attributes of fairies have been proven by this experiment - only that fairies in water make flowers grow. No conclusion about the appearances/size/other behaviour/shape or otherwise can be drawn from this experiment.
After generations of research, the tester community might come to the conclusion that fairies consist of phosphorus, nitrogenous compounds, copper, etc minerals, and they may be in water or soil. The tester is not too bright, and very ignorant , but you can't blame him for not following scientific process.
I see you making again the same.incorrect generalizations that I pointed out was incorrect. Each "paper" of gender theory may or may not be scientific. That too to varying degrees. Parts of a given discourse in gender theory could be scientific, other parts may not be so. Combined, they may give rise to conclusions that are understandably bastard children of science and non-science.
One could make decidedly unscientific "studies" in cognitive science, as the study in N-rays was in physics. You say it was fraudulent but a similar one could have been in honest error .
I even cited a rigorously scientific discussion on fairies as an example in my earlier post.
FWIW, I think there's some wiggle room in deciding which social sciences should be called sciences.
Very wrong and harmful statement. There is some wiggle room in deciding which hard science efforts should be called science. N rays ? String theory?
It is not only not productive, but outright wrong to call a whole field of study unscientific without going into details. I can apply perfect science to fairies. There are people who cannot apply science to Newton's laws. There is nothing inherently scientific about Newton's laws or the concept of fairies, the scientific method can be applied improperly and properly on any subject. Actual existence of fairies by regular definition notwithstanding.
In physics many experiments are not practical. So we can either do thought experiments, or remain in ignorance about them. We might scale the experiments down, even though the scaled down experiments might not be perfectly representative of the large experiments we wished to perform.
In "social sciences", a lot of kinds of experiments are not practical in the sense that doing experiments would cause suffering to a large number of people. So we do thought experiments, or suffer in ignorance. We sometimes scale down the experiments, and draw weaker conclusions or draw conclusions with less certainty, or no conclusions at all.
There is nothing inherently unscientific about "social" sciences.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it every time there is a complaint about food standards there is one pretentious git to tell us we should do it ourselves
You should see the threads discussing defects in open source code, especially Linux.
I would still trust cannabis, coca, salvia divinorum, opium poppy, psilocybin mushrooms and countless plants and other things with natural drug properties that humanity itself has evolved with, tried and tested over the millennia, before I would trust in the crap mankind has created in labs, with only decades at the most of highly limited testing (a few centuries in some cases).
I hope you equally trust Conium.
Scientists in 1945 : Don't drop an atomic bomb on Japan, it is very dangerous.
US powers that be : Do you have any historical examples?
Scientists : No, this is the first time someone has developed an atomic bomb. We have documented the amount and the speed with which heat will be released, not to mention the nasty radioactive stuff.
USPTB : Right, so it's never happened in all of history. But self proclaimed "futurologists"/physicists, that's more of self marketing men says it's going to happen soon, and you can profit (fame) from it, so it must be true.
When Darwin published his work, the shock was NOT that Genesis wasn't true, they already knew that. The shock was that nature was nasty
There wasn't any such shock.
What do you mean "They" ? Less than 0.1 percent of the world's population was even interested. Of them, large proportion equated God and Nature. Story of Job proved that God could be nasty. So Nature being nasty is not even a surprise.
Anyone denied any privilege feels "life isn't fair". Just another way of saying God/Nature is nasty.
No, it is sex and hunting.
Machines dont come with knowledge included
Humans don't come with knowledge included either. They either obtain it through other people's research, or through self research. Machines could do both of these too; and post singularity, better than humans.
No, you are not seeing through with the concept.
Cheap $500 robot can build 2000 more robots. But singularity doesn't guarantee building 2000 more robots from thin air. It would need raw materials. Given the enormous value of robots, price of raw materials would increase. $500 robot not so cheap any more. Eventually it leads to the mining land price rise.
Similarly , 2000 robots can farm, but not without land. Agricultural land prices will increase.
And anyway, given the rate of rise in wealth disparity, the mega - corporations would own all the robots. Technology will be patented, with trillions in lobbying spent to deny the same robots to proletariat. So there is no question of an individual "working", because no one but the corporations will be able to work.
As Pippin wisely said "I can't grow anymore, except sideways".
Willpower can be improved like anything else and I argue that we look at willpower as a quality that with sufficient improvement will overcome the challenge
Yes, and guess what one needs to improve this willpower? Willpower. A deadlock if ever I saw one.
In fact these two addons compliment each other. Using only Noscript, it is difficult to allow JavaScript but yet block flash from a page. Enter flashblock, problem solved.
As JavaScript is typically more trustworthy than flash, the converse goal of allowing flash but not JavaScript is less practical. And websites want to run some scripts to embed the flash, so it is less technically feasible too.
When Noscript blocks scripts on the page, it blocks flash too. So the only time when flashblock doesn't work is when it isn't needed. Flashblock and Noscript are only incompatible if the intention is a theoretical one of "running" flashblock. If the intention is a practical one of blocking unwanted flash, I see no incompatibility.
free market
subsidies
??? Is it supposed to be funny? Or just stupid?
Some would start losing muscle and/or immunity faster than they lose fat. That could turn ugly at some point far before they reach in the ballpark of healthy weight.
NoScript helps against javascript, java, flash, silverlight, font-face, webGL, audio/video, and more. Oracle Corporation is unable to see the future. Apple Computer Inc. is not a big fruit, nor a fruit flavoured computer. Get over the obsession with names.
Noscript is incompatible with flashblock.
I have both of these installed. What is the nature of the incompatibility?
Google wouldn't give them any special Android package -> they would be competing against emerging asian brands on HW alone
Microsoft didn't give any special package to Nokia either. Microsoft proudly announced this when other hardware manufacturers claimed discrimination.
Ever heard of someone preferring Toyota over Honda because Honda cars have tyres?
So Microsoft has a backdoor into Windows 8 to make it possible for Windows 9 to "come" on a laptop without the consent of its owner / administrator?
Even with Intel, the requirement of touchscreen is just to use the trademark "ultrabook". Laptops with AMD processors cannot use that trademark anyway, so just this requirement of touchscreen won't drive any exodus to AMD processors.
As the QA don't go on a vacation until the release to QA, I don't see why an overwhelming majority of bugs cannot be quashed before that.
No, that is only when constant is zero. Or insufficient to do complete QA. It being a constant has nothing to do with customer doing the QA.
Isn't
time to get to QC + constant = time to get to customer
?
Yes, they were the conditions I was operating under.
Yes, we should evaluate the minutest atoms of the research paper in each subject and I did mention "parts" of papers being scientific or not.
Now onto fairies , I did a complete scientific treatment if you read the post. There is absolutely no supernatural going on there.
Hypothesis : fairies in water make plants grow.
Test : water plants, plants grow, don't water plants no grow.
(Tester is ignorant about nutrients in soil/water).
Conclusion : Fairies exist. Notably, no other attributes of fairies have been proven by this experiment - only that fairies in water make flowers grow. No conclusion about the appearances/size/other behaviour/shape or otherwise can be drawn from this experiment.
After generations of research, the tester community might come to the conclusion that fairies consist of phosphorus, nitrogenous compounds, copper, etc minerals, and they may be in water or soil. The tester is not too bright, and very ignorant , but you can't blame him for not following scientific process.
I see you making again the same.incorrect generalizations that I pointed out was incorrect. Each "paper" of gender theory may or may not be scientific. That too to varying degrees. Parts of a given discourse in gender theory could be scientific, other parts may not be so. Combined, they may give rise to conclusions that are understandably bastard children of science and non-science.
One could make decidedly unscientific "studies" in cognitive science, as the study in N-rays was in physics. You say it was fraudulent but a similar one could have been in honest error .
I even cited a rigorously scientific discussion on fairies as an example in my earlier post.
FWIW, I think there's some wiggle room in deciding which social sciences should be called sciences.
Very wrong and harmful statement. There is some wiggle room in deciding which hard science efforts should be called science. N rays ? String theory?
It is not only not productive, but outright wrong to call a whole field of study unscientific without going into details. I can apply perfect science to fairies. There are people who cannot apply science to Newton's laws. There is nothing inherently scientific about Newton's laws or the concept of fairies, the scientific method can be applied improperly and properly on any subject. Actual existence of fairies by regular definition notwithstanding.
In physics many experiments are not practical. So we can either do thought experiments, or remain in ignorance about them. We might scale the experiments down, even though the scaled down experiments might not be perfectly representative of the large experiments we wished to perform.
In "social sciences", a lot of kinds of experiments are not practical in the sense that doing experiments would cause suffering to a large number of people. So we do thought experiments, or suffer in ignorance. We sometimes scale down the experiments, and draw weaker conclusions or draw conclusions with less certainty, or no conclusions at all.
There is nothing inherently unscientific about "social" sciences.