For one, it has been done has has been done many times.
Ah. Please tell me where and when or at least point me to a source. I'm really curious to see some case studies on this (what really happened, etc.)
They don't post "no limit" signs, that say "the faster you go, the faster the speed limit will be when it's put back up next month."
What do they post then? Or do they just take off the sign for a stretch of road and give no indication of any change in the limit for that road? Cause that's a seriously flawed calibration (the traffic will simply follow the limit for the previous stretch of road that DID have a posted limit). So, my point is that it will either be dangerous or rather useless. The appearance of a scientifically set limit while being nothing of the kind.
But there's little question that more people will find a tablet useful and worthwhile than an e-reader, even at three times the price.
The biggest point in the e-reader's favor is that the tablet (as it exists today) is a replacement for devices I already have. Also, a finger is a poor substitute for a mouse for someone who actually wants to work on the damn thing. I'll agree that a tablet is a much better fun toy that any other multimedia toys out there.
Yep. I like having copies of books on both my phone and my Nook. The biggest use - grocery store line. Since I'm not a woman (with the benefit of a purse), carrying around my Nook for that purpose is not feasible. Something that fits in my pocket is great for the many such short annoying periods of time that no longer go to waste. Buying in a Palm Zire 6 years ago and the Centro 2 years ago were the best investments I've ever made (in terms of cost-benefit ratio).
Same here (Palm Centro - for over 2 years now). And I read at ~50% brightness in normal daylight (70-80% if it's really bright out). I still got the Nook recently, not so much for the sunlight reading but for the paper-like experience. I read a LOT more now, especially before bedtime (didn't realize how much the LCD screen was contributing to lower sustained reading time).
M/V Analysis
The music video for Miracles is most notable for its “effin’ terrible, nevertheless amazing” dynamic, with plenty of quotable phrases as “FUCKING MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK?” (1:52) and “MAGIC EVERYWHERE IN THIS BITCH”, not to mention all of the things that happen in the video. He also mentions “fucking rainbows” which has become quite lulzworthy:
Then Shaggy says “and I don’t want to talk to a scientist, y’all mother fuckers lyin, and gettin me pissed.” This line implies a sense of frustration and paramount struggle in understanding basic scientific concepts, while maintaining a childlike sense of wonder over the forces of nature. He wants to know how magnets work, yet he is not willing to accept a scientific explanation.
The "lying" thing is clearly aimed at all such phenomena. So, I'll add to my original snerk. "Not about magnets, rainbows or any other "mysteries" that were solved (to first approximation) a long time ago. In any case, I fully realize it's just a stupid song and is being taken way too seriously. It's like seriously responding to Jenny McCarthy about vaccines. Obvious trolls are obvious but seem to have hooked a lot of fishies.
This by the way is why it is somewhat meaningless to refer to "science" when praising or critiquing it. It's like referring to "school" when discussing curricular issues - there are different grades and different levels of competence even within the same grade.
Just because pop sci uses a common vocabulary to describe the actual science (which requires heavy math to truly "understand") doesn't mean that that vocabulary is the entirety of the scientific gestalt. In fact, it is merely the tip of the iceberg. Of course, there are fields where this is actually the case (the pop sci version is approximately equal to the actual version). The hard sciences (called "hard" for that very reason) are definitely not like that. This is what makes some online boards so amusing to lurk in (not/.). There are so many armchair physicists who labor under the delusion that what they read in the latest popsci book is the whole story and that creating a new theory is as simple as pulling some neat idea out of your ass. I could show you emails that we get (on a near-monthly basis) from geniuses who have written epic manuscripts (with TeX and everything) conclusively proving that the earth will soon be colliding with hell.
All that aside, putting "understand" in quotes (like you and I both did) begs the question - "how do we define 'true' understanding?" No absolutes there but I think a good working rule for scientific explanations is as follows. A theory must explain the phenomenon in terms of simpler phenomena (recursively down to a very small set of similarly "explained phenomena" that can then be taken to be the new frontier (extensions to the Standard model of particle physics is a good example here). It must also predict new phenomena that can at least in principle be observed. The theory is then accepted on a provisional basis (if it satisfies rule 1) until rule 2 can be checked, at which it is either revised or promoted to a physical law. You can imagine extending this with minor changes to the other sciences. Some are still in their infancy (or deal with such complicated structures - societies, global economies, etc.) that it may take a long time before we can say that we "truly understand" how those things work (in the context of my working rules above). Give it time.
This is what is usually missing from mystical musings on understanding - a practical way to gauge that understanding.
I don't think he was offended. He merely expressed contempt and disdain. There's a difference. The latter usually applies to relatively harmless things that are also abhorrent. For what it's worth, I do agree with you. Why are we talking seriously about a creepy little band and its creepy little fans on/. ?? This is at best a Reddit/Digg issue.
Obviously, a child's sense of wonder is different from a that of a scientist. We have not lost our sense of wonder. We have merely... upgraded it. Interestingly, Nature (while being a sneaky bitch) is also quite bountiful in that for every puzzle solved by science, we are given many more that are much more fascinating than the last.
Besides, the person in your example is just an idiot who cannot recognize a rhetorical question or an idle musing when he sees one. You are equating semantically challenged douchenozzles (or at the worst, science fanboys) with scientists - a common strawman in such debates. Also (thankfully), in this day and age, it is relatively easy to find men or women (as mates) who are not so flaky that they need to live in willful ignorance (which is different, mind you, from indulging oneself in whimsy every now and then) just to feel a false sense of wonder.
Also amusing are the idiots who try to reverse this loss of pseudo-wonder with the common refrain, "Well, surely it can't be as mundane as all that. Surely, there's something more to life than just the physical world?" To them I can only say - the day you've exhausted the wonders of the physical world (aka "reality" - that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away*)
Disclaimer: Not all of this was in direct reply to you. Some of it was a response to related misconceptions.
I knew some smartass was gonna say that =D. The joke's on you pal. There's probably already a fetish site with chicks in latex suits driving fast and going left. Rawr!
lolwut? All I meant was, there's insufficient % concentration left to allow for full conversation - hence, no cellphone. Thanks for the chuckle though - I needed that =D
Gah. Since welfare will be the last to go, this just means essential public services start going first. I wish you were wrong but I can see that happening already. AC transit just declared a state of "fiscal emergency" a month back and will be rolling out service reductions soon.
wear those garish advertisement suits (like the Nascar idiots).
Idiots? They make more money than we do and all they have to do is drive fast and turn left. Who's the bigger idiot?
So do hookers. Big whoop. If it helps, consider the word "idiots" withdrawn. That wasn't the point of the post anyway. I just wanted to preserve the general rhythm of the sentence:p
Hope not. Cause having a scrolling billboard in front of you all the time will do wonders for road safety. Why not just erect a pole on each car and have strippers dancing on the roof? This whole e-ad thing and it's roadkill aftermath would make a wonderful ad campaign for kicking out all the incumbents in the next election.
I would love to trust the instinct of the common man on the road were it not for the sad fact that physics is optional in high school and the dynamics of objects moving at upwards of 20 mph is not something that's rooted in our DNA as so many drivers appear to believe.
I have a simple rule that has served me well (10 years of driving - in several states and one cross-country drive - and not a single collision/ticket). 30% concentration at a base level. Add 10 more to allow for road/weather/car conditions. Add 20 more to correct for other people's mistakes/stupidity. That's nearly perfect safety right there without having to drive like a 90 year old and I still have processing power left over for changing the radio station./Still don't use a cellphone while driving - math doesn't work out unless I talk only in binary (yes/no).
If the US should ever build the equivalent of the Autobahn, and decide not to post any speed limit at all, I will be among the first to drive it.:^)
I'd wait a year for the loons to Darwin themselves and then just go out and.... and.... make love to it. Like I said in a previous post, take away limits that people have lived under all their lives and the first expression of that newfound freedom is likely to be... unwise.
Wouldn't this calibration be flawed unless you didn't post a limit at all for a month or so while you're monitoring things? Unless this has ever been tried before in a relatively average neighborhood with safe outcomes, I would recommend taking a vacation during that month if you happen to live there. Oh, and don't park your car on the street either. I like the basic idea, but the calibration period is a shitstorm waiting to happen. Having said that, I can think of several neighborhoods I've lived and driven in (mostly in the midwest), where it wouldn't be all that bad. It's the coasts that would fuck things up royally, especially NYC and the Bay area and of course (holy roadkill batman) LA.
There's also the psych aspect to consider. If they'd started with this back when the auto was born, it would work fantastically. But now we're in the sticky situation of having had arbitrary limits on people all their lives and suddenly you take away those limits for a month of calibration and... carmageddon? I dunno. But like I said, that's when I'm going on vacation =]
Yeesh. I commuted to CSU for 3 years down that road. Yeah it's dangerous in winter, but to actually name it "dead man's curve" is melodramatic, not to mention sexist (and inaccurate - I mean consider the number of women... ah... never mind). I do agree that it's a design error of epic proportions.
/Loved to hug that curve at 50... but only at night with no one else on the road.
//It's not 'Need for speed'. Speed is boring. Acceleration rocks! Even centripetal. Rawr!
Slashdot Mirror
For one, it has been done has has been done many times.
Ah. Please tell me where and when or at least point me to a source. I'm really curious to see some case studies on this (what really happened, etc.)
They don't post "no limit" signs, that say "the faster you go, the faster the speed limit will be when it's put back up next month."
What do they post then? Or do they just take off the sign for a stretch of road and give no indication of any change in the limit for that road? Cause that's a seriously flawed calibration (the traffic will simply follow the limit for the previous stretch of road that DID have a posted limit). So, my point is that it will either be dangerous or rather useless. The appearance of a scientifically set limit while being nothing of the kind.
I'll wait for DVD then.
THIS
But there's little question that more people will find a tablet useful and worthwhile than an e-reader, even at three times the price.
The biggest point in the e-reader's favor is that the tablet (as it exists today) is a replacement for devices I already have. Also, a finger is a poor substitute for a mouse for someone who actually wants to work on the damn thing. I'll agree that a tablet is a much better fun toy that any other multimedia toys out there.
Yep. I like having copies of books on both my phone and my Nook. The biggest use - grocery store line. Since I'm not a woman (with the benefit of a purse), carrying around my Nook for that purpose is not feasible. Something that fits in my pocket is great for the many such short annoying periods of time that no longer go to waste. Buying in a Palm Zire 6 years ago and the Centro 2 years ago were the best investments I've ever made (in terms of cost-benefit ratio).
Same here (Palm Centro - for over 2 years now). And I read at ~50% brightness in normal daylight (70-80% if it's really bright out). I still got the Nook recently, not so much for the sunlight reading but for the paper-like experience. I read a LOT more now, especially before bedtime (didn't realize how much the LCD screen was contributing to lower sustained reading time).
It doesn't say scientists are liars about magnets. What exactly are you trying to get at here?
From this site:
M/V Analysis The music video for Miracles is most notable for its “effin’ terrible, nevertheless amazing” dynamic, with plenty of quotable phrases as “FUCKING MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK?” (1:52) and “MAGIC EVERYWHERE IN THIS BITCH”, not to mention all of the things that happen in the video. He also mentions “fucking rainbows” which has become quite lulzworthy: Then Shaggy says “and I don’t want to talk to a scientist, y’all mother fuckers lyin, and gettin me pissed.” This line implies a sense of frustration and paramount struggle in understanding basic scientific concepts, while maintaining a childlike sense of wonder over the forces of nature. He wants to know how magnets work, yet he is not willing to accept a scientific explanation.
The "lying" thing is clearly aimed at all such phenomena. So, I'll add to my original snerk. "Not about magnets, rainbows or any other "mysteries" that were solved (to first approximation) a long time ago. In any case, I fully realize it's just a stupid song and is being taken way too seriously. It's like seriously responding to Jenny McCarthy about vaccines. Obvious trolls are obvious but seem to have hooked a lot of fishies.
Small addendum:
This by the way is why it is somewhat meaningless to refer to "science" when praising or critiquing it. It's like referring to "school" when discussing curricular issues - there are different grades and different levels of competence even within the same grade.
Just because pop sci uses a common vocabulary to describe the actual science (which requires heavy math to truly "understand") doesn't mean that that vocabulary is the entirety of the scientific gestalt. In fact, it is merely the tip of the iceberg. Of course, there are fields where this is actually the case (the pop sci version is approximately equal to the actual version). The hard sciences (called "hard" for that very reason) are definitely not like that. This is what makes some online boards so amusing to lurk in (not /.). There are so many armchair physicists who labor under the delusion that what they read in the latest popsci book is the whole story and that creating a new theory is as simple as pulling some neat idea out of your ass. I could show you emails that we get (on a near-monthly basis) from geniuses who have written epic manuscripts (with TeX and everything) conclusively proving that the earth will soon be colliding with hell.
All that aside, putting "understand" in quotes (like you and I both did) begs the question - "how do we define 'true' understanding?" No absolutes there but I think a good working rule for scientific explanations is as follows. A theory must explain the phenomenon in terms of simpler phenomena (recursively down to a very small set of similarly "explained phenomena" that can then be taken to be the new frontier (extensions to the Standard model of particle physics is a good example here). It must also predict new phenomena that can at least in principle be observed. The theory is then accepted on a provisional basis (if it satisfies rule 1) until rule 2 can be checked, at which it is either revised or promoted to a physical law. You can imagine extending this with minor changes to the other sciences. Some are still in their infancy (or deal with such complicated structures - societies, global economies, etc.) that it may take a long time before we can say that we "truly understand" how those things work (in the context of my working rules above). Give it time.
This is what is usually missing from mystical musings on understanding - a practical way to gauge that understanding.
*snert* =D
I don't think he was offended. He merely expressed contempt and disdain. There's a difference. The latter usually applies to relatively harmless things that are also abhorrent. For what it's worth, I do agree with you. Why are we talking seriously about a creepy little band and its creepy little fans on /. ?? This is at best a Reddit/Digg issue.
Actually, some scientists are liars.
Not about magnets :p
Old mysteries are old. Rabbit. Pancake on head, etc.
Obviously, a child's sense of wonder is different from a that of a scientist. We have not lost our sense of wonder. We have merely ... upgraded it. Interestingly, Nature (while being a sneaky bitch) is also quite bountiful in that for every puzzle solved by science, we are given many more that are much more fascinating than the last.
Besides, the person in your example is just an idiot who cannot recognize a rhetorical question or an idle musing when he sees one. You are equating semantically challenged douchenozzles (or at the worst, science fanboys) with scientists - a common strawman in such debates. Also (thankfully), in this day and age, it is relatively easy to find men or women (as mates) who are not so flaky that they need to live in willful ignorance (which is different, mind you, from indulging oneself in whimsy every now and then) just to feel a false sense of wonder.
Also amusing are the idiots who try to reverse this loss of pseudo-wonder with the common refrain, "Well, surely it can't be as mundane as all that. Surely, there's something more to life than just the physical world?" To them I can only say - the day you've exhausted the wonders of the physical world (aka "reality" - that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away*)
Disclaimer: Not all of this was in direct reply to you. Some of it was a response to related misconceptions.
_____________
*Philip Dick
I knew some smartass was gonna say that =D. The joke's on you pal. There's probably already a fetish site with chicks in latex suits driving fast and going left. Rawr!
Ask and the intertubes shall deliver. This and that. First one's not a photoshop, but yeah, lazy GIS - sue me :p
lolwut? All I meant was, there's insufficient % concentration left to allow for full conversation - hence, no cellphone. Thanks for the chuckle though - I needed that =D
We will become Greece very soon.
On the bright side, I can drown my sorrows in Baklava then. But yeah, thanks for cheering me up :p
Gah. Since welfare will be the last to go, this just means essential public services start going first. I wish you were wrong but I can see that happening already. AC transit just declared a state of "fiscal emergency" a month back and will be rolling out service reductions soon.
Idiots? They make more money than we do and all they have to do is drive fast and turn left. Who's the bigger idiot?
So do hookers. Big whoop. If it helps, consider the word "idiots" withdrawn. That wasn't the point of the post anyway. I just wanted to preserve the general rhythm of the sentence :p
So I can just imagine what the first hacker is going to draw on a plate.
8008135 ?
Hope not. Cause having a scrolling billboard in front of you all the time will do wonders for road safety. Why not just erect a pole on each car and have strippers dancing on the roof? This whole e-ad thing and it's roadkill aftermath would make a wonderful ad campaign for kicking out all the incumbents in the next election.
I would love to trust the instinct of the common man on the road were it not for the sad fact that physics is optional in high school and the dynamics of objects moving at upwards of 20 mph is not something that's rooted in our DNA as so many drivers appear to believe.
I have a simple rule that has served me well (10 years of driving - in several states and one cross-country drive - and not a single collision/ticket). 30% concentration at a base level. Add 10 more to allow for road/weather/car conditions. Add 20 more to correct for other people's mistakes/stupidity. That's nearly perfect safety right there without having to drive like a 90 year old and I still have processing power left over for changing the radio station. /Still don't use a cellphone while driving - math doesn't work out unless I talk only in binary (yes/no).
If the US should ever build the equivalent of the Autobahn, and decide not to post any speed limit at all, I will be among the first to drive it. :^)
I'd wait a year for the loons to Darwin themselves and then just go out and .... and .... make love to it. Like I said in a previous post, take away limits that people have lived under all their lives and the first expression of that newfound freedom is likely to be ... unwise.
Wouldn't this calibration be flawed unless you didn't post a limit at all for a month or so while you're monitoring things? Unless this has ever been tried before in a relatively average neighborhood with safe outcomes, I would recommend taking a vacation during that month if you happen to live there. Oh, and don't park your car on the street either. I like the basic idea, but the calibration period is a shitstorm waiting to happen. Having said that, I can think of several neighborhoods I've lived and driven in (mostly in the midwest), where it wouldn't be all that bad. It's the coasts that would fuck things up royally, especially NYC and the Bay area and of course (holy roadkill batman) LA.
There's also the psych aspect to consider. If they'd started with this back when the auto was born, it would work fantastically. But now we're in the sticky situation of having had arbitrary limits on people all their lives and suddenly you take away those limits for a month of calibration and ... carmageddon? I dunno. But like I said, that's when I'm going on vacation =]
Yeesh. I commuted to CSU for 3 years down that road. Yeah it's dangerous in winter, but to actually name it "dead man's curve" is melodramatic, not to mention sexist (and inaccurate - I mean consider the number of women ... ah ... never mind). I do agree that it's a design error of epic proportions.
/Loved to hug that curve at 50 ... but only at night with no one else on the road.
//It's not 'Need for speed'. Speed is boring. Acceleration rocks! Even centripetal. Rawr!