Mea Culpa:). A bit late to clarify now but I really was operating under the assumption that the person I replied to was a USian (and hence put it in those terms). I was aware that the basis for it went as far back as the Magna Carta (though it's even further back in time than that, as I now understand from OP's reply to my post).
To clarify even further (regarding your comment about "your ancestors":)), my relative ignorance in that respect (the details of European history) shouldn't be extended to "Americans in general" since I'm a (recently) naturalized citizen (originally Indian).
Ah. My apologies about the US-centric jab then:). I wasn't aware of that history and that it was in the UN UDHR.
With all due respect to the UN however, my original statement stands - other countries are not obliged to abide by the UN guidelines (and most simply don't, especially when it comes to human rights). I can tell you from experience that in this particular aspect (innocent until proven guilty), India is not a good place to get arrested. There are many people languishing in prison just waiting for a trial, for several YEARS. For all practical purposes, the absence in Indian law of the "right to a speedy trial" (found in the US constitution and VERY strictly enforced on US soil - in domestic cases at least) automatically means that anyone charged of a crime can be published with an unofficial prison term prior to a trial. Therefore, the judicial system there really does go with "guilty unless proven innocent" with no legal theory to oppose it.
While you're correct as a matter of principle, the legal theory of "innocent until proven guilty" (while self-evident) is only valid (again, from a legal point of view) in the United States (which is why I'm glad I live here now - the justice system sucks balls in India). I assure you that things are quite excellent in the US when you compare it to the rest of the world.
A blanket shout-out to everyone in this thread - this is a different country we're talking about. Check your US-centric legal opinions at the door before posting;)
You're probably right - I have no personal experience with one, but yes, it was largely melodramatic exaggeration on my part.
Although, I don't right off why it would be torture. Wouldn't you get a flat gain across the spectrum (merely raising the overall sound level to audible levels?) Or do you mean that there's intrinsic noise or some kind of pickup? What exactly did you mean by 'digital' ones? Surely, the doctor would calibrate it to your own specific level so that the overall gain would bring you up to "normal" levels. Even if there was a high ambient noise level, it would be "normal", right?
Hopefully, direct-to-brain tech will get here soon and we can accommodate ADA-style mandates with one simple option without completely ruining the web for everyone.
That's why I haven't gone the contact lens or lasik route. Those options presuppose that the world is always worth looking at. It's nice to be able to just pull off my glasses and tune the world out visually from time to time. Ironically, I look forward to the age when I start going deaf - I could sit in a bus and disable my hearing aid - bliss! You think public cell phone users are noisy? Ha!
To be fair, it is a well-known fact(TM) that a mastery of vector calculus invalidates any prior expertise in arithmetic, so your argument is invalid =)
Just cos we're older tan these kids is no reason for submitter to be so snarky. Cosecant be blamed too much - I wouldn't be cot dead for one secant sympathizing with such levels of dumbness.
Why does any religion get any loyalty? *shrug* FWIW, the Church of England appears to be relatively benign - about the best I can say about any religious institution (it's good if it's not totally farked up, weird standards those but what can ya do?).
There was an amazing article I read where the author took the logical next step and discussed how law enforcement would look like if we accepted the same standards of evidence that the ID'ers do. Hilarious! I searched for an hour but couldn't find it =(. Maybe you'll have better luck (the problem is too many search results on "law" or "court" or "ID" and mixtures thereof. Shows how the courts are the only place they can hope to have their say where reasonable people won't start giggling.
Yes, I see your point. However, as you mentioned, this may just be a case of differing fields of study and the kind of signal to noise one expects in those fields. I learned this from my thesis advisor when we were discussing an exciting experiment with an astro guy who'd found some weird new phenomenon in our field. Hard to go into details right now but the crux of it was that he was presenting data that he thought was very significant (a peak) from the point of view of his field (where noisy data is a fact of life). But, in condensed matter physics (which is what he was trying to get published), the standards are much higher, since we have much greater control over experimental conditions (which astro folks just can't - you can't make a gamma ray burst behave or perform at your command =) and especially not repeat over and over to average out the noise, the last being something we can do for hours or days if needed). Shortly, by the standards of cond-mat, the results of this paper are at best an encouraging sign to repeat the experiment (with drastic improvements in methodology and instrumentation - as the low-Tc supercon guy in this thread pointed out).
Nothing you said is relevant except for the actual paper, which is well written (and doesn't read like a crank - he appears to be fully cognizant of the current state of the field). I've posted (elsewhere on this page) exactly why this conclusion is unlikely (based on a critique of the actual arxiv paper). Further, the author does not claim what the summary here states (another reason to RTFA) - he merely states that it may be an indication of superconductivity in the context of a specific model that was published a while ago (in a mainstream journal). You might want to take a minute to look into it before showing your ignorance with such ludicrous rants.
*sigh* It's even worse than that. IAAP and I was very excited to see this... at first. The article by the way is very well written (serious science - not a crank). The problem is that the data (figure 2 in the arxiv paper - everyone should check this out btw) on which the author hangs all his hopes is seriously noisy (compared to the size of the "kink" that he superposes on the graph). In other words, if you imagine erasing the drawn-in kink, such artifacts occur several places in the data and are generally not above the noise level.
So, I would say that the conclusion is highly unwarranted given the state of the existing signal to noise. However, if the author truly feels there's something promising, he simply has to go about improving his signal. To be fair, the/. title is far more ambitious compared to the original article (indications of...). He's merely putting this out in the wild to get feedback from other researchers in the field (which is solely what Arxiv is used for by serious researchers, not as a publication destination).
As it stands, the "kink" seems to be nothing more than (one of several) noise bumps. I'll be keeping an eye on this guy of course. Maybe something might come out of this, who know?
Although I disagree with the thin edge of the wedge, I think I over reacted to your post.
Well, it's not my interpretation. Rather, it's a publicly stated policy of the Discovery Institute (and the link I gave last time showed the actual document without any annotation showing their own stated aims - make of that what you will). More details and original sources can be found here.
I am pretty new to slashdot posting(I'm a posting leach - I read but don't contribute much), but I do apologize for it...
No apologies necessary. And the technical term, I believe, is a lurker =). We're all lurkers at most of the sites we frequent and active posters in only a selected few. If that wasn't so, I doubt any of us would have time to earn a living =)
I have enjoyed this honest exchange of opinion(forget about the lack of congruence)!
I think you've underestimated my sincerity, although you're right in that I was being a little satirical pretending I didn't know these idiots were claiming to be Christians while sprouting heresy.;)
LOL! Fair 'nuff (I was secretly afraid that was the case, which is why I added the sincerity clause to cover my ass =) albeit leaving bare patches to be kicked). It was still an excellent post on your part - I'd never heard that particular argument before and had an evil little chuckle after reading it =)
Slashdot Mirror
Mea Culpa :). A bit late to clarify now but I really was operating under the assumption that the person I replied to was a USian (and hence put it in those terms). I was aware that the basis for it went as far back as the Magna Carta (though it's even further back in time than that, as I now understand from OP's reply to my post).
:)), my relative ignorance in that respect (the details of European history) shouldn't be extended to "Americans in general" since I'm a (recently) naturalized citizen (originally Indian).
To clarify even further (regarding your comment about "your ancestors"
Ah. My apologies about the US-centric jab then :). I wasn't aware of that history and that it was in the UN UDHR.
With all due respect to the UN however, my original statement stands - other countries are not obliged to abide by the UN guidelines (and most simply don't, especially when it comes to human rights). I can tell you from experience that in this particular aspect (innocent until proven guilty), India is not a good place to get arrested. There are many people languishing in prison just waiting for a trial, for several YEARS. For all practical purposes, the absence in Indian law of the "right to a speedy trial" (found in the US constitution and VERY strictly enforced on US soil - in domestic cases at least) automatically means that anyone charged of a crime can be published with an unofficial prison term prior to a trial. Therefore, the judicial system there really does go with "guilty unless proven innocent" with no legal theory to oppose it.
While you're correct as a matter of principle, the legal theory of "innocent until proven guilty" (while self-evident) is only valid (again, from a legal point of view) in the United States (which is why I'm glad I live here now - the justice system sucks balls in India). I assure you that things are quite excellent in the US when you compare it to the rest of the world.
A blanket shout-out to everyone in this thread - this is a different country we're talking about. Check your US-centric legal opinions at the door before posting ;)
You're probably right - I have no personal experience with one, but yes, it was largely melodramatic exaggeration on my part.
Although, I don't right off why it would be torture. Wouldn't you get a flat gain across the spectrum (merely raising the overall sound level to audible levels?) Or do you mean that there's intrinsic noise or some kind of pickup? What exactly did you mean by 'digital' ones? Surely, the doctor would calibrate it to your own specific level so that the overall gain would bring you up to "normal" levels. Even if there was a high ambient noise level, it would be "normal", right?
Even more connection points. I approve =)
Hopefully, direct-to-brain tech will get here soon and we can accommodate ADA-style mandates with one simple option without completely ruining the web for everyone.
That's why I haven't gone the contact lens or lasik route. Those options presuppose that the world is always worth looking at. It's nice to be able to just pull off my glasses and tune the world out visually from time to time. Ironically, I look forward to the age when I start going deaf - I could sit in a bus and disable my hearing aid - bliss! You think public cell phone users are noisy? Ha!
NERDS!!!
The sad part is that you think this is an insult here =)
It's like yelling "GAY!!!" at a rainbow parade =p
NERDDDDD PRIDE!!!
*ahem*
a box is empty and can be filled. makes good concrete sense. then later, we 'upgrade' the box to an x.
... no doubt explaining the overwhelming success of the porn industry in the US.
To be fair, it is a well-known fact(TM) that a mastery of vector calculus invalidates any prior expertise in arithmetic, so your argument is invalid =)
- bunny, pancakes, etc.
It's a sine of the times.
Just cos we're older tan these kids is no reason for submitter to be so snarky. Cosecant be blamed too much - I wouldn't be cot dead for one secant sympathizing with such levels of dumbness.
Poe's corollary for bureaucratic intelligence?
Years ago, the whitehouse.com pornographer ...
o.O Can I have that job??!! Change we can believe in =)
Here's an idea - get a farking bayonet! =)
Why does any religion get any loyalty? *shrug* FWIW, the Church of England appears to be relatively benign - about the best I can say about any religious institution (it's good if it's not totally farked up, weird standards those but what can ya do?).
There was an amazing article I read where the author took the logical next step and discussed how law enforcement would look like if we accepted the same standards of evidence that the ID'ers do. Hilarious! I searched for an hour but couldn't find it =(. Maybe you'll have better luck (the problem is too many search results on "law" or "court" or "ID" and mixtures thereof. Shows how the courts are the only place they can hope to have their say where reasonable people won't start giggling.
Yes, I see your point. However, as you mentioned, this may just be a case of differing fields of study and the kind of signal to noise one expects in those fields. I learned this from my thesis advisor when we were discussing an exciting experiment with an astro guy who'd found some weird new phenomenon in our field. Hard to go into details right now but the crux of it was that he was presenting data that he thought was very significant (a peak) from the point of view of his field (where noisy data is a fact of life). But, in condensed matter physics (which is what he was trying to get published), the standards are much higher, since we have much greater control over experimental conditions (which astro folks just can't - you can't make a gamma ray burst behave or perform at your command =) and especially not repeat over and over to average out the noise, the last being something we can do for hours or days if needed). Shortly, by the standards of cond-mat, the results of this paper are at best an encouraging sign to repeat the experiment (with drastic improvements in methodology and instrumentation - as the low-Tc supercon guy in this thread pointed out).
I concur. The kink in figure 2 is not above the general noise level. The superposed "fit curve" (not really a fit of any kind) seems rather arbitrary.
Nothing you said is relevant except for the actual paper, which is well written (and doesn't read like a crank - he appears to be fully cognizant of the current state of the field). I've posted (elsewhere on this page) exactly why this conclusion is unlikely (based on a critique of the actual arxiv paper). Further, the author does not claim what the summary here states (another reason to RTFA) - he merely states that it may be an indication of superconductivity in the context of a specific model that was published a while ago (in a mainstream journal). You might want to take a minute to look into it before showing your ignorance with such ludicrous rants.
FAPP (For all practical purpose)
No offense, but I sincerely hope that acronym does not catch on =)
*sigh* It's even worse than that. IAAP and I was very excited to see this ... at first. The article by the way is very well written (serious science - not a crank). The problem is that the data (figure 2 in the arxiv paper - everyone should check this out btw) on which the author hangs all his hopes is seriously noisy (compared to the size of the "kink" that he superposes on the graph). In other words, if you imagine erasing the drawn-in kink, such artifacts occur several places in the data and are generally not above the noise level.
So, I would say that the conclusion is highly unwarranted given the state of the existing signal to noise. However, if the author truly feels there's something promising, he simply has to go about improving his signal. To be fair, the /. title is far more ambitious compared to the original article (indications of ...). He's merely putting this out in the wild to get feedback from other researchers in the field (which is solely what Arxiv is used for by serious researchers, not as a publication destination).
As it stands, the "kink" seems to be nothing more than (one of several) noise bumps. I'll be keeping an eye on this guy of course. Maybe something might come out of this, who know?
Although I disagree with the thin edge of the wedge, I think I over reacted to your post.
Well, it's not my interpretation. Rather, it's a publicly stated policy of the Discovery Institute (and the link I gave last time showed the actual document without any annotation showing their own stated aims - make of that what you will). More details and original sources can be found here.
I am pretty new to slashdot posting(I'm a posting leach - I read but don't contribute much), but I do apologize for it...
No apologies necessary. And the technical term, I believe, is a lurker =). We're all lurkers at most of the sites we frequent and active posters in only a selected few. If that wasn't so, I doubt any of us would have time to earn a living =)
I have enjoyed this honest exchange of opinion(forget about the lack of congruence)!
Ditto =)
Ha! That works. I've watched his stand-up but not Tosh.0. This is a mistake that must be rectified ... and soon.
And 50 grams of fat just magically burped away in a puff of fairy dust =)
Maybe I should start a Facebook fan page =p
I think you've underestimated my sincerity, although you're right in that I was being a little satirical pretending I didn't know these idiots were claiming to be Christians while sprouting heresy. ;)
LOL! Fair 'nuff (I was secretly afraid that was the case, which is why I added the sincerity clause to cover my ass =) albeit leaving bare patches to be kicked). It was still an excellent post on your part - I'd never heard that particular argument before and had an evil little chuckle after reading it =)