Mine doesn't confuse visually, though... it's more of an olfactory experience.
Ah, I see you have yet to learn the rest of the somewhat dangerous Furious Bomb of Distraction Technique.
First you must gather your Chi within yourself.
Then you must expel your Chi forcefully in a directed blast.
This is the Basic Furious Bomb of Distraction.
Only the True Master can realize the full potential of the Advanced Furious Bomb of Distraction.
After gathering your Chi, you must light a match and hold it in front of the Badger Den.
Then, and only then, can you expel your Chi in a blue-flamed spectacle of diversion, thus giving a visual impact to your olfactory experience.
Let me hazard a guess here: you two are talking about farting, no?
Which is why I don't see this as that good of an idea, I think that its more efficent to have the cpu/gpu, ram, bios, and the whole thing on a single chip. That is how chip design is going anyway isn't it. It makes more sense to me to get a whole motherboard inside a chip, then to make a krap load of mini motherboards.
Well, just do s/chip/module/g and you have described their project.
"We are taking everything that goes into motherboard now and chopping it up," says David Ackley, associate professor of computer science at the University of New Mexico and one of the contributors to the project. "We have a CPU, RAM, data storage and serial ports for connectivity on every two square inches."
He said Causality, not Casualty. Although I'm still curious as to what he means..
He says that there is no guilt, and that right and wrong are relative, because it is all causality.
Instead of explaining what he meant by that, he goes off to send people to jail, or even into different countries where each group lives free in its own country, and countries are separated by some purely relative moral "point" that nonetheless holds for all people on Earth.
In short, he is not interested in meaning, he is just another confused wonnabe ruler of the world.
It has long been the expectation that there should be transparency in the affairs of government officials as a means by which public trust can be maintained. The standard should be different for private individuals which is precisely why we identify people as being either "public" or "private" individuals.
And yet for an undercover cop to do his job, it's rather important that he fit in the "private" group, don't you think?
Talking about undercover cops in terms of the public/private opposition is a contradiction in terms: You have a public figure, cop, who is supposed to be simultaneously a private figure, as implied by the attribute undercover. The only solution when talking in such simplistic terms is to have an undercover cop be a public figure, or, said somewhat more precisely, have the transparency instituted for the reasons that GP mentions.
I'm sure it can be formally proved that a programmer with lots of experience in C/C++ and no knowledge of Haskell finds programs in Haskell hard to read.
You know the funny thing about this whole discussion is that the OS linked to in the article is not the first. Integrity from Green Hills Software was proven correct a while ago. It is popular for safety critical stuff like flight controls for airplanes and is one of the dominant players in that niche.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/11/green_hills_sof.html
And what is truly amusing about following this argument, is that Integrity is written in C.:)
Although I can see that you're amused, what you're saying is false: Integrity is not formally proven correct, it only has some amusing but mathematically irrelevant industry certificate.
Nonsense. Peer review is nothing other than forming a consensus.
Yes, but a consensus among a few peers that the given manuscript should be published. Even then, journals clearly require that referees should provide comments, suggestions and ultimately give some sort of explanation for their decisions. So, it is not just a matter of reaching the consensus. Faith of a manuscript then could and sometimes does depended on which referees are chosen by the journal, and, even if the decision is that the manuscript should not be published, authors can complain or try again with another journal.
Either you have hard evidence to convince other scientists...
...in which case, you all reach a consensus.
But only after the convincing hard evidence is produced. Even then, there are often smaller groups of skeptics that cannot be convinced at all.
But the law should, and should make the *criminal* and *civil* penalties so utterly destructive to any business that they don't dare do it. I'm talking life imprisonment, seizure of assets, massive awards for those injured, and so forth. I mean, basically make such behavior a recipe for extinction of the company, utter destruction of share value, imprisonment of researchers who colluded, seizures of every asset of every member of the board, every officer of the company, and so forth.
Maybe on Mars that's possible, but here on Earth, we have already laws in place, and, perhaps more importantly, these businesses you're talking about are really corporations---they, by their definition, are societies with limited responsibility---as though they have already conspired against the very measures you propose! This is no coincidence.
GP never said that hard facts have no consensus. He rather said that the consensus is a consequence of something being a hard fact, not the other way around. He also said that if you needed consensus to establish that something is a fact, then that would have only proved that you don't know, scientifically, whether that is indeed the fact or not.
In you example, the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s not only because there is a consensus among physicists that this is so, but because it is the "hard" fact, i.e the fact well established experimentally, or, in yet another words, that is the reason for physicists' consensus.
That's true, but journals' reputations still do depend on a perception that the studies they publish are generally high-quality and honest. So I could see a case for these journals suing Wyeth for the damage to their reputations that these papers have caused.
Science just does not work that way. You don't establish reputation of your journal in court. It's too late now.
I mostly agree with you, with one correction: journals, generally speaking, don't check methodology, reviewers do that, and, I'd like to add, they look also at the names and affiliations of authors, and these are an important factor as well.
I'm curious to know if these journals are real respected peer reviewed publications.
You betcha. From the web site of one of them:
With a 2008 impact factor of 3.453 (previously 2.917 or an 18% increase), the American Journal of
Obstetrics & Gynecology [AJOG] (The Gray Journal) is now ranked 7th of 61 journals in the Obstetrics &
Gynecology category, according to the latest Journal Citation Reports(r) 2008, published by Thomson
Reuters.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how science works, yeah.
No, that's not how science works.
What were they talking about then?
Did I say first post?
You did and you bombed it.
At least they haven't named it Swima teroristicus.
Ah, I see you have yet to learn the rest of the somewhat dangerous Furious Bomb of Distraction Technique.
First you must gather your Chi within yourself. Then you must expel your Chi forcefully in a directed blast. This is the Basic Furious Bomb of Distraction.
Only the True Master can realize the full potential of the Advanced Furious Bomb of Distraction. After gathering your Chi, you must light a match and hold it in front of the Badger Den. Then, and only then, can you expel your Chi in a blue-flamed spectacle of diversion, thus giving a visual impact to your olfactory experience.
Let me hazard a guess here: you two are talking about farting, no?
Very useful, especially if you have detachable penis.
Which is why I don't see this as that good of an idea, I think that its more efficent to have the cpu/gpu, ram, bios, and the whole thing on a single chip. That is how chip design is going anyway isn't it. It makes more sense to me to get a whole motherboard inside a chip, then to make a krap load of mini motherboards.
Well, just do s/chip/module/g and you have described their project.
[I... I...] don't understad
From TFA:
"We are taking everything that goes into motherboard now and chopping it up," says David Ackley, associate professor of computer science at the University of New Mexico and one of the contributors to the project. "We have a CPU, RAM, data storage and serial ports for connectivity on every two square inches."
He said Causality, not Casualty. Although I'm still curious as to what he means..
He says that there is no guilt, and that right and wrong are relative, because it is all causality. Instead of explaining what he meant by that, he goes off to send people to jail, or even into different countries where each group lives free in its own country, and countries are separated by some purely relative moral "point" that nonetheless holds for all people on Earth.
In short, he is not interested in meaning, he is just another confused wonnabe ruler of the world.
Your post is creepy.
It has long been the expectation that there should be transparency in the affairs of government officials as a means by which public trust can be maintained. The standard should be different for private individuals which is precisely why we identify people as being either "public" or "private" individuals.
And yet for an undercover cop to do his job, it's rather important that he fit in the "private" group, don't you think?
Talking about undercover cops in terms of the public/private opposition is a contradiction in terms: You have a public figure, cop, who is supposed to be simultaneously a private figure, as implied by the attribute undercover. The only solution when talking in such simplistic terms is to have an undercover cop be a public figure, or, said somewhat more precisely, have the transparency instituted for the reasons that GP mentions.
They do, they just don't notice them.
Unit tests test that certain values work correctly.
What if the test has passed because of the faulty/unspecified/specific implementation of the specification?
I'm sure it can be formally proved that a programmer with lots of experience in C/C++ and no knowledge of Haskell finds programs in Haskell hard to read.
You know the funny thing about this whole discussion is that the OS linked to in the article is not the first. Integrity from Green Hills Software was proven correct a while ago. It is popular for safety critical stuff like flight controls for airplanes and is one of the dominant players in that niche. :)
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/11/green_hills_sof.html
And what is truly amusing about following this argument, is that Integrity is written in C.
Although I can see that you're amused, what you're saying is false: Integrity is not formally proven correct, it only has some amusing but mathematically irrelevant industry certificate.
What's up with the quote?
[concepts a]re a whole new category of things
Combining this with a Stroustrup's claim from TFA we may conclude:
:D
An idea of concepts is a whole new category of things.
they've been soldering those wires. They should you thicker ones if they want higher current. Doh!
In real science, no consensus is required.
Nonsense. Peer review is nothing other than forming a consensus.
Yes, but a consensus among a few peers that the given manuscript should be published. Even then, journals clearly require that referees should provide comments, suggestions and ultimately give some sort of explanation for their decisions. So, it is not just a matter of reaching the consensus. Faith of a manuscript then could and sometimes does depended on which referees are chosen by the journal, and, even if the decision is that the manuscript should not be published, authors can complain or try again with another journal.
Either you have hard evidence to convince other scientists...
...in which case, you all reach a consensus.
But only after the convincing hard evidence is produced. Even then, there are often smaller groups of skeptics that cannot be convinced at all.
But the law should, and should make the *criminal* and *civil* penalties so utterly destructive to any business that they don't dare do it. I'm talking life imprisonment, seizure of assets, massive awards for those injured, and so forth. I mean, basically make such behavior a recipe for extinction of the company, utter destruction of share value, imprisonment of researchers who colluded, seizures of every asset of every member of the board, every officer of the company, and so forth.
Maybe on Mars that's possible, but here on Earth, we have already laws in place, and, perhaps more importantly, these businesses you're talking about are really corporations---they, by their definition, are societies with limited responsibility---as though they have already conspired against the very measures you propose! This is no coincidence.
GP never said that hard facts have no consensus. He rather said that the consensus is a consequence of something being a hard fact, not the other way around. He also said that if you needed consensus to establish that something is a fact, then that would have only proved that you don't know, scientifically, whether that is indeed the fact or not.
In you example, the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s not only because there is a consensus among physicists that this is so, but because it is the "hard" fact, i.e the fact well established experimentally, or, in yet another words, that is the reason for physicists' consensus.
It might not be fair, but that doesn't change the fact that physics isn't a better, more scientific science.
Fact? What fact? You write as if you know what you're talking about.
That's true, but journals' reputations still do depend on a perception that the studies they publish are generally high-quality and honest. So I could see a case for these journals suing Wyeth for the damage to their reputations that these papers have caused.
Science just does not work that way. You don't establish reputation of your journal in court. It's too late now.
I mostly agree with you, with one correction: journals, generally speaking, don't check methodology, reviewers do that, and, I'd like to add, they look also at the names and affiliations of authors, and these are an important factor as well.
I'm curious to know if these journals are real respected peer reviewed publications.
You betcha. From the web site of one of them:
With a 2008 impact factor of 3.453 (previously 2.917 or an 18% increase), the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology [AJOG] (The Gray Journal) is now ranked 7th of 61 journals in the Obstetrics & Gynecology category, according to the latest Journal Citation Reports(r) 2008, published by Thomson Reuters.
from [AJOG]