Get a scientist and tell him to prove that water is made from two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen...he can prove it...
No, he can't. He can show you an overwhelming amount of evidence that is consistent with the H2O theory, but that is not the same thing as proof. It is, however, as close to proof as anything in science ever gets.
To put that into laymans terms, they have new data that agrees with old data and theories. That can be a good thing for the status of a theory. But let's be somewhat scientific here and not throw around statements that imply proven theories.
No, in layman's terms, they've proven the theory. In scientific terms, they have new data that agrees with old data and theories. The problem is that non-technical language doesn't distinguish between "theory" and "hypothesis," nor between "sufficient evidence to accept" and "proof."
AFAIK, none of the techniques we have right now can detect planets much smaller than the one they just found. The exciting thing is that every time the techniques get better, they immediately start finding bunches of new planets down to whatever the current limit is; which implies to me that once the resolution is fine enough, we'll probably be seeing ~Earth-mass planets all over the place.
McNamara, at least has given a very public mea culpa -- granted, this is easy to do now that he has nothing to lose by doing so. I'm not saying it's enough, but it's more than I'd ever expect from the others on your list.
Out of curiosity, when did you enlist? When I first raised my right hand, it was 1987; the Cold War was still on, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were still on a hair trigger, and for all we knew the tanks could start rolling at any minute. Granted, the USSR was already collapsing from the inside and the Soviet forces probably couldn't have sustained high-intensity combat operations for more than a week at the outside, but we didn't know that; to us, they were still the Big Bad. I suspect that for those who joined up even a couple of years later, the picture looked very different.
My daughter is twelve. Her mother was in the service too, so it's in her blood from both sides; I have no idea if she'll want to enlist or not, but if she does, I think I'll tell her, "Spend the summer after you graduate from high school volunteering at a VA hospital. If you still want to do it after that, you'll have my blessing." There are good reasons to join the service, but I think it would help a lot if these kids knew what they were getting into.
Besides, the average marine has about a high school education, no morals and a low threshold for the sanctity of life. They might as well be robots anyways.:-)
Sorry folks there ain't no draft and it isn't a mystery that the US war machine is a "tad" corrupt. you sign up for the military because you want to profit from the misery of others. That is unless you sign up for the military to do something outside of being a grunt [e.g. doctor, engineer, etc]. Then you're ok.
These people you so casually dismiss as "robots" sign up, generally speaking, when they're eighteen or nineteen years old; they believe, almost without exception, that they are doing so to serve their country, to protect the Constitution and the flag and Mom and apple pie. And you know what? At most times throughout our country's history, they've been right.
Just a few years later, if they're unlucky enough to have enlisted at a time like the current one, they're old men, scarred by things no human being should ever have to see. That's what war (any war, including the "good" ones) does to people. That doesn't happen to robots.
I started out as one of those nineteen-year-old grunts; a couple of years later, dimly sensing what was coming down the pike, I cross-trained as a medic, in which capacity I served in Desert Storm. I had no desire whatsoever to "profit from the misery of others" -- I wanted to serve, and I was, relatively speaking, one of the lucky ones. I don't have anyone's death on my conscience. I do have memories of things that will give me nightmares and flashbacks for the rest of my life... and mine was a very, very short war. What those kids over there are going through now is so much worse I can't quite get my mind around it.
They're not robots. They're your son, your niece, your little brother, caught up in a horrible situation not of their own making. Don't take your anger out on them. Save it for the evil old men who never exposed themselves to that kind of horror, who would never allow their own children to go through it, who casually, thoughtlessly, cheerfully send other people's kids off to hell.
Here is the story in question. It's even worse than outlawing criticism, actually; it would outlaw any reporting on the program at all. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the worst challenge free speech in the US has faced since the Sedition Act.
The movie's portrayal of Nash was cleaned up quite a bit -- in reality he was even crazier than Crowe portrayed him, and not at all a sympathetic character. The nice thing about people like Dunin is that they demonstrate to the world that people can be true geniuses without falling into any of the "mad scientist" or "hopeless social outcast" stereotypes.
-Security of data: obviously no data is *absolutely* secure if the computer is connected to the net, but enough security that I could feasibly work with medical records and HIPPA-privledged information without constantly worrying about crackers. For those of you who don't know what HIPPA is, imagine a very protective law about patient confidentiality that can result in serious jail time if it is violated.
As someone who has worked in both patient care and in medical IT, I'd personally feel a lot more comfortable if the people responsible for securing patient records know what HIPAA is. So, what's this law you're talking about? Sounds pretty serious to me.;)
Good point; perhaps I should have said "... without making a big deal of..." instead of "... without even noting..." above. I agree that the story of the person who makes an accomplishment is often just as interesting as the accomplishment itself, and should not be forgotten.
Bingo. I was particularly amused (in a sad, laughing-because-it-hurts way) by the note that Joy "helped launch a $200 million fund directed at developing defenses against biological viruses" -- this is kind of like the X-Prize foundation calling for a moratorium on development of rocket engines.
Yes, you did, and even in your latest post, you're still overstating it -- and providing the answer to the question in your original post. The reason that people who aren't straight, white, Christian males feel the need to celebrate the accomplishements of $DEMOGRAPHIC_GROUP is because although straight, white, Christian males have accomplished a hell of a lot, they haven't accomplished as large a proportion of everything as a lot of people (like you) seem to think they have; and those who are not swCm's feel justifiably aggrieved at having their accomplishments downplayed (or, in many cases, having the credit stolen outright.) Really, it's a matter of a pendulum swing; give it some time, and things will settle down. In a perfect world, we'd give everyone credit for their accomplishments without even noting their sexual preference, race, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, age, veteran status, height, weight, hair color, absence or presence of hair, musical tastes, et bloody cetera... but we're a long way from that right now.
1. Nobody ignored Pons and Fleischman; quite the opposite. Every physics lab in the world tried to replicate their results. Nobody could. Ergo, they were wrong. FWIW, I don't think they were intentional frauds -- I think that they got some exciting early results, and jumped the gun on announcing them before those results could be verified. But the idea of a Sceintific Establishment Conspiracy to suppress their work bears no relation to the truth.
2. This isn't even a P&F type case (if P&F had been right, we would have had to rethink some fundamental assumptions about how fusion works.) The discovery of this animal presents no contradiction to evolutionary theory whatsoever. There's nothing here to "ignore." Why is this hard for you to understand?
Silly analogy. There aren't a whole lot of Indians left in Manhattan (or anywhere else, for that matter.) Corporations that treat employers like disposable supplies, OTOH, are at least as numerous as they were in the heyday of unions in the early-to-mid 20th c.
Unfortunately there's a strong "unions == bad" meme among a lot of geeks. I think it's because tech workers' conditions have, until quite recently, been very very good by overall work-conditions standards: comfortable environments, low risk of physical injury, reasonable work hours, etc. What tech workers, and office workers in general, have failed to grasp is that these conditions exist because of the efforts of organized labor over the last century or so; and now, inevitably, with the decline in the power of unions, we're starting to see work environments become less and less comfortable with work hours extending to the point where exhaustion and burnout are inevitable and physical injury, particularly RSI, becomes a serious risk. Whether this will lead to more organizing efforts like the one in Australia is anyone's guess, but I'd sure like to see it happen.
Complicating this is that a lot of geeks are libertarians, and a lot of self-styled libertarians think unions have the smell of socialism. Which is stupid, of course; unions are in fact an admirably free-market solution to the problem of employer-employee conflicts. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that asking someone who calls himself a libertarian about his opinion of organized labor is a good way to distinguish between true libertarians on the one hand, and right-wingers who call themselves libertarians because it's fashionable in certain circles on the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, you're right. I should have RTFA more carefully.
Get a scientist and tell him to prove that water is made from two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen...he can prove it...
No, he can't. He can show you an overwhelming amount of evidence that is consistent with the H2O theory, but that is not the same thing as proof. It is, however, as close to proof as anything in science ever gets.
To put that into laymans terms, they have new data that agrees with old data and theories. That can be a good thing for the status of a theory. But let's be somewhat scientific here and not throw around statements that imply proven theories.
No, in layman's terms, they've proven the theory. In scientific terms, they have new data that agrees with old data and theories. The problem is that non-technical language doesn't distinguish between "theory" and "hypothesis," nor between "sufficient evidence to accept" and "proof."
AFAIK, none of the techniques we have right now can detect planets much smaller than the one they just found. The exciting thing is that every time the techniques get better, they immediately start finding bunches of new planets down to whatever the current limit is; which implies to me that once the resolution is fine enough, we'll probably be seeing ~Earth-mass planets all over the place.
McNamara, at least has given a very public mea culpa -- granted, this is easy to do now that he has nothing to lose by doing so. I'm not saying it's enough, but it's more than I'd ever expect from the others on your list.
Out of curiosity, when did you enlist? When I first raised my right hand, it was 1987; the Cold War was still on, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were still on a hair trigger, and for all we knew the tanks could start rolling at any minute. Granted, the USSR was already collapsing from the inside and the Soviet forces probably couldn't have sustained high-intensity combat operations for more than a week at the outside, but we didn't know that; to us, they were still the Big Bad. I suspect that for those who joined up even a couple of years later, the picture looked very different.
My daughter is twelve. Her mother was in the service too, so it's in her blood from both sides; I have no idea if she'll want to enlist or not, but if she does, I think I'll tell her, "Spend the summer after you graduate from high school volunteering at a VA hospital. If you still want to do it after that, you'll have my blessing." There are good reasons to join the service, but I think it would help a lot if these kids knew what they were getting into.
Besides, the average marine has about a high school education, no morals and a low threshold for the sanctity of life. They might as well be robots anyways. :-)
... and mine was a very, very short war. What those kids over there are going through now is so much worse I can't quite get my mind around it.
Sorry folks there ain't no draft and it isn't a mystery that the US war machine is a "tad" corrupt. you sign up for the military because you want to profit from the misery of others. That is unless you sign up for the military to do something outside of being a grunt [e.g. doctor, engineer, etc]. Then you're ok.
These people you so casually dismiss as "robots" sign up, generally speaking, when they're eighteen or nineteen years old; they believe, almost without exception, that they are doing so to serve their country, to protect the Constitution and the flag and Mom and apple pie. And you know what? At most times throughout our country's history, they've been right.
Just a few years later, if they're unlucky enough to have enlisted at a time like the current one, they're old men, scarred by things no human being should ever have to see. That's what war (any war, including the "good" ones) does to people. That doesn't happen to robots.
I started out as one of those nineteen-year-old grunts; a couple of years later, dimly sensing what was coming down the pike, I cross-trained as a medic, in which capacity I served in Desert Storm. I had no desire whatsoever to "profit from the misery of others" -- I wanted to serve, and I was, relatively speaking, one of the lucky ones. I don't have anyone's death on my conscience. I do have memories of things that will give me nightmares and flashbacks for the rest of my life
They're not robots. They're your son, your niece, your little brother, caught up in a horrible situation not of their own making. Don't take your anger out on them. Save it for the evil old men who never exposed themselves to that kind of horror, who would never allow their own children to go through it, who casually, thoughtlessly, cheerfully send other people's kids off to hell.
Here is the story in question. It's even worse than outlawing criticism, actually; it would outlaw any reporting on the program at all. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the worst challenge free speech in the US has faced since the Sedition Act.
The movie's portrayal of Nash was cleaned up quite a bit -- in reality he was even crazier than Crowe portrayed him, and not at all a sympathetic character. The nice thing about people like Dunin is that they demonstrate to the world that people can be true geniuses without falling into any of the "mad scientist" or "hopeless social outcast" stereotypes.
Only the cat knows, and if you ask, it might kill him.
Since they're Swedes, shouldn't it really be something like:
"Yah shure, set the longship's course for England!"
"Well, yah know, Sven, I hear the MPAA and RIAA have better loot these days."
"Fer right, Olaf! Crew! Strike sails and ready yer axes!"
-Security of data: obviously no data is *absolutely* secure if the computer is connected to the net, but enough security that I could feasibly work with medical records and HIPPA-privledged information without constantly worrying about crackers. For those of you who don't know what HIPPA is, imagine a very protective law about patient confidentiality that can result in serious jail time if it is violated.
;)
As someone who has worked in both patient care and in medical IT, I'd personally feel a lot more comfortable if the people responsible for securing patient records know what HIPAA is. So, what's this law you're talking about? Sounds pretty serious to me.
Good point; perhaps I should have said "... without making a big deal of ..." instead of "... without even noting ..." above. I agree that the story of the person who makes an accomplishment is often just as interesting as the accomplishment itself, and should not be forgotten.
Bingo. I was particularly amused (in a sad, laughing-because-it-hurts way) by the note that Joy "helped launch a $200 million fund directed at developing defenses against biological viruses" -- this is kind of like the X-Prize foundation calling for a moratorium on development of rocket engines.
... for reporting on Luddism, creationism, global warming denial, radical environmentalism, crank physics, etc.
Whoops, I overstated this.
... but we're a long way from that right now.
Yes, you did, and even in your latest post, you're still overstating it -- and providing the answer to the question in your original post. The reason that people who aren't straight, white, Christian males feel the need to celebrate the accomplishements of $DEMOGRAPHIC_GROUP is because although straight, white, Christian males have accomplished a hell of a lot, they haven't accomplished as large a proportion of everything as a lot of people (like you) seem to think they have; and those who are not swCm's feel justifiably aggrieved at having their accomplishments downplayed (or, in many cases, having the credit stolen outright.) Really, it's a matter of a pendulum swing; give it some time, and things will settle down. In a perfect world, we'd give everyone credit for their accomplishments without even noting their sexual preference, race, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, age, veteran status, height, weight, hair color, absence or presence of hair, musical tastes, et bloody cetera
The Mongols.
1. Nobody ignored Pons and Fleischman; quite the opposite. Every physics lab in the world tried to replicate their results. Nobody could. Ergo, they were wrong. FWIW, I don't think they were intentional frauds -- I think that they got some exciting early results, and jumped the gun on announcing them before those results could be verified. But the idea of a Sceintific Establishment Conspiracy to suppress their work bears no relation to the truth.
2. This isn't even a P&F type case (if P&F had been right, we would have had to rethink some fundamental assumptions about how fusion works.) The discovery of this animal presents no contradiction to evolutionary theory whatsoever. There's nothing here to "ignore." Why is this hard for you to understand?
I hereby christen it "meringuoid's law."
It will soon be famous in samizdat and the gulags.
Pandas are a lot easier to spot, and therefore to count, than rats.
No.
Next question?
Okay, good point; I should have said "... or anwhere else in the US ..."
Silly analogy. There aren't a whole lot of Indians left in Manhattan (or anywhere else, for that matter.) Corporations that treat employers like disposable supplies, OTOH, are at least as numerous as they were in the heyday of unions in the early-to-mid 20th c.
Unfortunately there's a strong "unions == bad" meme among a lot of geeks. I think it's because tech workers' conditions have, until quite recently, been very very good by overall work-conditions standards: comfortable environments, low risk of physical injury, reasonable work hours, etc. What tech workers, and office workers in general, have failed to grasp is that these conditions exist because of the efforts of organized labor over the last century or so; and now, inevitably, with the decline in the power of unions, we're starting to see work environments become less and less comfortable with work hours extending to the point where exhaustion and burnout are inevitable and physical injury, particularly RSI, becomes a serious risk. Whether this will lead to more organizing efforts like the one in Australia is anyone's guess, but I'd sure like to see it happen.
Complicating this is that a lot of geeks are libertarians, and a lot of self-styled libertarians think unions have the smell of socialism. Which is stupid, of course; unions are in fact an admirably free-market solution to the problem of employer-employee conflicts. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that asking someone who calls himself a libertarian about his opinion of organized labor is a good way to distinguish between true libertarians on the one hand, and right-wingers who call themselves libertarians because it's fashionable in certain circles on the other.
I am Orbiter! I orbit! I like to orbit! Watch me orbit! Orbiting makes me happy! My purpose is to orbit! I am Orbiter!
Orbit! Orbit! Orbit!