Sol and Luna aren't proper names, they are Latin names. They aren't improper names either, just not better. Their English names are the Sun and the Moon. There's a fine point of grammar in there about inserting the definite article "the" in there, much like in "the Earth" vs. "Earth" vs. "Terra" but never "the Terra".
The Latin names aren't all that obscure either. You might stump people you ambush on the street, but "solar" and "lunar" are well-known terms. I agree that satellite has come to mean man-made satellites in everyday parlance.
Scientific labels tend to be intentionally recognizably distinct from popular ones as lack of distinction is an invitation for ambiguity and confusion.
No, they don't. The only example I can think of for that is IUPAC organic chemical naming conventions, and that's because IUPAC naming conventions define an algorithm for naming an unbounded number of chemicals, even ones never mentioned before, unambiguously.
Here are some short, simple scientific words from the top of my head that are often used differently by the non-scientific community:
force energy work power theory weight (very similar to planet, the public often conflates weight and mass which are separated in scientific contexts) proof accuracy / precision chemical bug insect fruit (hence the infamous debates about tomatoes)
Yes this is what you get for "voting" rather than recognizing more work is needed to build consensus to get everyone save outliers onboard. 1/3 disagreeing isn't a consensus.
You've got it backwards. You're saying before you can solve the problem, the problem needs to be solved.
This sounds a bit lame as justifications go... lose efficiency? Since when are scientists in the business of conserving syllables?
Since always. Ever notice how variables names in physics formulas (and pure math formulas) are single-characters, even though that means we have to reach into multiple alphabets? That's punishable by death in most software contexts.
I have to challenge you on that. Show it formally, or I will have to disregard your claim. I do not believe you can back up your claim.
I will say that atheism doesn't preclude a belief in the absence of gods, it only requires an absence of belief in god.
Let me illustrate the difference:
I don't believe my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I also don't believe that my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I neither know, nor care, whether my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I have an absence of belief concerning the presence, or non-presence, of a 4K TV in my neighbour's bedroom. I think it's unlikely, but not so unlikely that I'd bet money on the subject.
I do affirmatively believe, however, that my neighbour has a bedroom, even though I've never seen it.
And I believe that my neighbour does not have 100 4K TVs in his bedroom. I affirmatively believe in the absence of 100 4K TVs in the bedroom of my neighbour, despite never having seen it and despite admitting that it is hypothetically possible. After all, I believe in the existence of more than 4K TVs whose locations I have never identified, and I believe in the existence of bedrooms sufficiently large to house 100 4K TVs if you pack them correctly, especially the smaller ones. But I do not believe that he has 100 4K TVs in his bedroom.
(Atheism requires just as much faith as theism, since atheists still must "believe" in the unprovable.)
Nooooope.
For example, it takes more faith to believe that there is a psychic duck flying through space deliberately diverting meteors from hitting the Earth so that Earth will have time to develop civilization, than it does to believe that there is no such duck, even though the lack of a psychic space duck is not disprovable because he could always have just used his psychic powers to erase the memory of anybody who tries to make an observation. A being of logic would not include the possibility of the psychic duck just because it had heard of the concept -- that would be biasing its decisions toward old ideas.
Your statement is common, but it's a variation on saying that something has a 50% chance of being broken: either it is broker, or it isn't. It's a facile analysis and it's unfair to both atheists and theists.
Regardless, everybody has to agree on definitions. Wikipedia says:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
The "most inclusive" definition is not an aberration or a vandalism, and is the one used here.
On agnosticism:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
People aren't born believing that they can't possibly know whether or not God exists, that's a conclusion that rational people make.
As corollary, agnosticism is not incompatible with atheism and in the strictest sense isn't even incompatible with theism or the stricter senses of atheism (in that you can acknowledge a truth value as strictly unknowable without regarding it as a 50/50 even-money option, like the psychic duck).
He didn't say average *people*, the context was explicitly about how good a grasp of science people had. Yes, scientists have an above-average grasp of science, and non-scientists therefore have, on average, a slightly below-average knowledge of science, because the sample is biased by the removal of scientists.
While true, there's still more to it if we tie to a case like this:
It is a well-established principle of Canadian law that any post-employment restriction on competition or solicitation that goes beyond what is “reasonably required” to protect the Company’s proprietary rights, such as confidential marketing or pricing information or its client relationships, will not be enforceable. The overriding issue the courts will consider is whether or not the clause goes beyond what is reasonable to furnish appropriate protection to the Company.
An important takeaway is that "systematically hiring away A123’s high-tech PhD and engineering employees, thereby effectively shutting down various projects/programs at A123," would not be legal in Canada because that doesn't protect any proprietary rights. A123 does not have a proprietary right to PhDs and engineers, it has a proprietary right to trade relationships with clients and confidential information.
Absent evidence to the contrary, the courts will assume that an employee will honour his or her obligations with respect to the use of confidential information.
Genuine question: how do they authenticate you so that they know to send the OTP to you?
Do they just assume you have physical possession of your phone? i.e. just "something you have"? If so, why would you imagine that's better than having a password?
My naive guess would be that there's both a password and phone authentication going on at some point in your banking process. Such two-factor authentication is not absolutely required by all banks in the US, it's not uncommon and it's pushed hard by many of them, and usually it goes password-first, then phone auth.
void func() {
if (AquireResource1())
{
if (AquireResource2())
{
if (AquireResource3())
{
DoStuffWithResources();
Cleanup3();
}
Cleanup2();
}
Cleanup1();
}
return; }
I know some people are allergic to triangles, but I like them because it makes it easy to see what code is potentially skipped and which code is definitely going to run (barring a crash) at any given time.
This is essentially simulating RAII semantics in C. You might even pack all three AcquireResource[1|2|3] functions into a common AcquireAllResources and in so doing make the if less ugly.
I don't like that goto code above because I think it makes it difficult to follow every flow of execution. You may be used to it and think the opposite.
SWAT teams should be culpable for their actions, but that doesn't exonerate this guy in the least.
If there is a defective product on sale that, used in a particular way, explodes and kills the operator, and the manufacturer knew about this and kept selling it, they are guilty of something. If you know about it and trick another person into using the explody-product in the explody-way, you're a murderer too.
This is at least manslaughter and probably murder, in the same sense as pointing a gun in somebody's general direction and shooting is still murder if your eyes are closed and you honestly didn't expect to hit them based on your shitty aim.
I would say "hand me the red Lego". Possibly following it up with "all the red Lego" if they only give me some of it, which I could understand. If they gave me just one piece I'd think they were being a smart-ass. That's also how I would write it in general unless I had a legal reason to recognise the registered trademark.
I've only ever seen people say "Legos" on the Internet, starting with that Penny-Arcade comic. I've never actually heard somebody say that in person. Same with "Lego bricks", except I think I may have heard that on the Lego movie or written on a Lego box. I have used "Lego pieces" and "piece of Lego", which seems more accurate since they aren't all brick-like.
I've come to understand that there seem to be enclaves of people that treat Lego like it refers to an individual piece, but to me that's a weird synecdoche. It's like calling a single noodle spaghetti so a meal of those noodles would be spaghettis. I know spaghetti is an Italian plural already, but I suspect most people who have said the word "spaghetti" is not aware of that fact, in the same way most Lego consumers don't know it's a Danish abbreviation (I didn't know that before this thread), but we all know the meal is spaghetti and not spaghettis.
It has one very obvious thing to do with the turing test: failing to distinguish software from another human being.
They aren't exactly the same, but that's not the same as having nothing to do with each other. The Slashdot article title was poetic, which is very fitting. I expect the Slashdot title was written by a human.
The fact of the matter is, just because somebody says they are adding a new onerous task for safety, doesn't mean it actually nets you safety, or that it's reasonable.
Remember, cars kill far more people than nuclear power, even if you take the most insane exaggerations as the deaths from nuclear power throughout history, which implies that cars are, in aggregate, much more dangerous than nuclear power is, in aggregate.
The safest thing we could do is outlaw cars and aggressively eliminate them. The next safest thing we could do is design them such that they are physically incapable of moving faster than a below-average human can walk away. Think that's unreasonable? WHY DO YOU LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE DIE IN CAR ACCIDENTS??!?!? I can't think of a reason ANYONE would want the vehicular transport industry to be less safe than it could possibly be. Except that this is a strawman and real life is about considering issues in context.
I can also tell you that every power source -- every one of them -- has dangers involved. Yes, all of them. Eventually you hit a point where your best choice for safety still doesn't meet your wild standards, so to meet safety standards you have to use the *less safe* option which nevertheless has less strict safety standards.
So what would be neat to know is what is being softened here, so we could tell whether it's a good or a bad idea. It could be either way. Everyone assuming that softening the standards is a bad thing, based on literally no information, has demonstrated themselves to be unqualified to make judgements because they have presupposed the conclusion. What I do know is that nuclear safety is very highly regulated to begin with, and I like that there is such regulation, and my only problem is that some common sources that are beastly-dangers do not undergo similar rigour like the much-put-upon fossil fuels.
But once a civilization has achieved the Iron Age of technology, such a civilization is likely to achieve space faring status within a thousand years
It took humans 3200 years. Why do you assume that the average species is *way better* than humans?
In any case though, I thought it was pretty clearly talking about nipping things in the bud, sterilizing all life at any point in the massive timeline between the first self-replicator to a civilization capable of avoiding or defending against gamma ray bursts. The amount of time it actually takes is probably some random variable, and all things considered, how long it took us is probably around average. Earth life existed about 3.5 billion years or more before we came along.
The It's not nearly close enough. The Milgram experiment showed that people preferred science to leaving each other alone. That's the opposite of proving that people prefer killing to science.
The Stanford Prison Experiment showed some dark things about humanity but it didn't prove anything close to the original claim.
A scientific experiment that shows circumstances in which humans are shitbags, does not show that all negative statements about humans are true. That's a total logical disconnect.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's an academic exercise. Physics is academic research.
I can't figure out your point. And I really can't figure out how it's like L'Académie française.
Sol and Luna aren't proper names, they are Latin names. They aren't improper names either, just not better. Their English names are the Sun and the Moon. There's a fine point of grammar in there about inserting the definite article "the" in there, much like in "the Earth" vs. "Earth" vs. "Terra" but never "the Terra".
The Latin names aren't all that obscure either. You might stump people you ambush on the street, but "solar" and "lunar" are well-known terms. I agree that satellite has come to mean man-made satellites in everyday parlance.
Scientific labels tend to be intentionally recognizably distinct from popular ones as lack of distinction is an invitation for ambiguity and confusion.
No, they don't. The only example I can think of for that is IUPAC organic chemical naming conventions, and that's because IUPAC naming conventions define an algorithm for naming an unbounded number of chemicals, even ones never mentioned before, unambiguously.
Here are some short, simple scientific words from the top of my head that are often used differently by the non-scientific community:
force
energy
work
power
theory
weight (very similar to planet, the public often conflates weight and mass which are separated in scientific contexts)
proof
accuracy / precision
chemical
bug
insect
fruit (hence the infamous debates about tomatoes)
Yes this is what you get for "voting" rather than recognizing more work is needed to build consensus to get everyone save outliers onboard. 1/3 disagreeing isn't a consensus.
You've got it backwards. You're saying before you can solve the problem, the problem needs to be solved.
This sounds a bit lame as justifications go... lose efficiency? Since when are scientists in the business of conserving syllables?
Since always. Ever notice how variables names in physics formulas (and pure math formulas) are single-characters, even though that means we have to reach into multiple alphabets? That's punishable by death in most software contexts.
It doesn't have to be perfectly inelastic for that to be a problem, it has to be sufficiently inelastic.
A lot of power drain is inelastic, eg. refrigeration.
I have to challenge you on that. Show it formally, or I will have to disregard your claim. I do not believe you can back up your claim.
I will say that atheism doesn't preclude a belief in the absence of gods, it only requires an absence of belief in god.
Let me illustrate the difference:
I don't believe my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I also don't believe that my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I neither know, nor care, whether my next door neighbour has a 4K TV in his bedroom. I have an absence of belief concerning the presence, or non-presence, of a 4K TV in my neighbour's bedroom. I think it's unlikely, but not so unlikely that I'd bet money on the subject.
I do affirmatively believe, however, that my neighbour has a bedroom, even though I've never seen it.
And I believe that my neighbour does not have 100 4K TVs in his bedroom. I affirmatively believe in the absence of 100 4K TVs in the bedroom of my neighbour, despite never having seen it and despite admitting that it is hypothetically possible. After all, I believe in the existence of more than 4K TVs whose locations I have never identified, and I believe in the existence of bedrooms sufficiently large to house 100 4K TVs if you pack them correctly, especially the smaller ones. But I do not believe that he has 100 4K TVs in his bedroom.
What about forcing participation on voting, but not forcing the vote to be valid (you can choose "none of the above")?
It removes apathy vs zealotry as a political weapon, since you have to go vote anyway, but doesn't force you to avoid undefined.
(Atheism requires just as much faith as theism, since atheists still must "believe" in the unprovable.)
Nooooope.
For example, it takes more faith to believe that there is a psychic duck flying through space deliberately diverting meteors from hitting the Earth so that Earth will have time to develop civilization, than it does to believe that there is no such duck, even though the lack of a psychic space duck is not disprovable because he could always have just used his psychic powers to erase the memory of anybody who tries to make an observation. A being of logic would not include the possibility of the psychic duck just because it had heard of the concept -- that would be biasing its decisions toward old ideas.
Your statement is common, but it's a variation on saying that something has a 50% chance of being broken: either it is broker, or it isn't. It's a facile analysis and it's unfair to both atheists and theists.
Regardless, everybody has to agree on definitions. Wikipedia says:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
The "most inclusive" definition is not an aberration or a vandalism, and is the one used here.
On agnosticism:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
People aren't born believing that they can't possibly know whether or not God exists, that's a conclusion that rational people make.
As corollary, agnosticism is not incompatible with atheism and in the strictest sense isn't even incompatible with theism or the stricter senses of atheism (in that you can acknowledge a truth value as strictly unknowable without regarding it as a 50/50 even-money option, like the psychic duck).
He didn't say average *people*, the context was explicitly about how good a grasp of science people had. Yes, scientists have an above-average grasp of science, and non-scientists therefore have, on average, a slightly below-average knowledge of science, because the sample is biased by the removal of scientists.
And those immigrants are already counted in the statistics for the US height.
Real personal traits are, in fact, representative of who you are and what your personality is.
Torvald's didn't say the "many eyes" thing at all. Eric S. Raymond did.
While true, there's still more to it if we tie to a case like this:
It is a well-established principle of Canadian law that any post-employment restriction on
competition or solicitation that goes beyond what is “reasonably required” to protect the
Company’s proprietary rights, such as confidential marketing or pricing information or its client
relationships, will not be enforceable. The overriding issue the courts will consider is whether or
not the clause goes beyond what is reasonable to furnish appropriate protection to the Company.
An important takeaway is that "systematically hiring away A123’s high-tech PhD and engineering employees, thereby effectively shutting down various projects/programs at A123," would not be legal in Canada because that doesn't protect any proprietary rights. A123 does not have a proprietary right to PhDs and engineers, it has a proprietary right to trade relationships with clients and confidential information.
Absent evidence to the contrary, the courts will assume that an employee will honour his
or her obligations with respect to the use of confidential information.
Genuine question: how do they authenticate you so that they know to send the OTP to you?
Do they just assume you have physical possession of your phone? i.e. just "something you have"? If so, why would you imagine that's better than having a password?
My naive guess would be that there's both a password and phone authentication going on at some point in your banking process. Such two-factor authentication is not absolutely required by all banks in the US, it's not uncommon and it's pushed hard by many of them, and usually it goes password-first, then phone auth.
I grew up 4 hours away from the nearest city.
The only people who don't take credit cards are teenagers (for babysitting and mowing lawns, generally). And even that looks like it's changing.
I have emergency cash at home or when I travel, in case disaster strikes and takes down the credit network. That's about it.
void func()
{
if (AquireResource1())
{
if (AquireResource2())
{
if (AquireResource3())
{
DoStuffWithResources();
Cleanup3();
}
Cleanup2();
}
Cleanup1();
}
return;
}
I know some people are allergic to triangles, but I like them because it makes it easy to see what code is potentially skipped and which code is definitely going to run (barring a crash) at any given time.
Another alternative:
void func ()
{
Resource resources[3];
if (AcquireResource1(&resources[0]) &&
AcquireResource2(&resources[1]) &&
AcquireResource3(&resources[2]))
{
DoStuff(Resources);
}
ReleaseResources(resources);
return;
}
This is essentially simulating RAII semantics in C. You might even pack all three AcquireResource[1|2|3] functions into a common AcquireAllResources and in so doing make the if less ugly.
I don't like that goto code above because I think it makes it difficult to follow every flow of execution. You may be used to it and think the opposite.
No, he doesn't.
Way to completely miss TWX's point.
SWAT teams should be culpable for their actions, but that doesn't exonerate this guy in the least.
If there is a defective product on sale that, used in a particular way, explodes and kills the operator, and the manufacturer knew about this and kept selling it, they are guilty of something. If you know about it and trick another person into using the explody-product in the explody-way, you're a murderer too.
This is at least manslaughter and probably murder, in the same sense as pointing a gun in somebody's general direction and shooting is still murder if your eyes are closed and you honestly didn't expect to hit them based on your shitty aim.
I would say "hand me the red Lego". Possibly following it up with "all the red Lego" if they only give me some of it, which I could understand. If they gave me just one piece I'd think they were being a smart-ass. That's also how I would write it in general unless I had a legal reason to recognise the registered trademark.
I've only ever seen people say "Legos" on the Internet, starting with that Penny-Arcade comic. I've never actually heard somebody say that in person. Same with "Lego bricks", except I think I may have heard that on the Lego movie or written on a Lego box. I have used "Lego pieces" and "piece of Lego", which seems more accurate since they aren't all brick-like.
I've come to understand that there seem to be enclaves of people that treat Lego like it refers to an individual piece, but to me that's a weird synecdoche. It's like calling a single noodle spaghetti so a meal of those noodles would be spaghettis. I know spaghetti is an Italian plural already, but I suspect most people who have said the word "spaghetti" is not aware of that fact, in the same way most Lego consumers don't know it's a Danish abbreviation (I didn't know that before this thread), but we all know the meal is spaghetti and not spaghettis.
It has one very obvious thing to do with the turing test: failing to distinguish software from another human being.
They aren't exactly the same, but that's not the same as having nothing to do with each other. The Slashdot article title was poetic, which is very fitting. I expect the Slashdot title was written by a human.
I started in Kindergarten in Ontario.
A quick Internet search suggests that Texas standards have science at grade 1 -- don't know about Kindergarten.
I think it's pretty universal that science starts when school starts.
That's not a contradiction at all.
The fact of the matter is, just because somebody says they are adding a new onerous task for safety, doesn't mean it actually nets you safety, or that it's reasonable.
Remember, cars kill far more people than nuclear power, even if you take the most insane exaggerations as the deaths from nuclear power throughout history, which implies that cars are, in aggregate, much more dangerous than nuclear power is, in aggregate.
The safest thing we could do is outlaw cars and aggressively eliminate them. The next safest thing we could do is design them such that they are physically incapable of moving faster than a below-average human can walk away. Think that's unreasonable? WHY DO YOU LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE DIE IN CAR ACCIDENTS??!?!? I can't think of a reason ANYONE would want the vehicular transport industry to be less safe than it could possibly be. Except that this is a strawman and real life is about considering issues in context.
I can also tell you that every power source -- every one of them -- has dangers involved. Yes, all of them. Eventually you hit a point where your best choice for safety still doesn't meet your wild standards, so to meet safety standards you have to use the *less safe* option which nevertheless has less strict safety standards.
So what would be neat to know is what is being softened here, so we could tell whether it's a good or a bad idea. It could be either way. Everyone assuming that softening the standards is a bad thing, based on literally no information, has demonstrated themselves to be unqualified to make judgements because they have presupposed the conclusion. What I do know is that nuclear safety is very highly regulated to begin with, and I like that there is such regulation, and my only problem is that some common sources that are beastly-dangers do not undergo similar rigour like the much-put-upon fossil fuels.
How many $1 bills do you carry in your pocket???
But once a civilization has achieved the Iron Age of technology, such a civilization is likely to achieve space faring status within a thousand years
It took humans 3200 years. Why do you assume that the average species is *way better* than humans?
In any case though, I thought it was pretty clearly talking about nipping things in the bud, sterilizing all life at any point in the massive timeline between the first self-replicator to a civilization capable of avoiding or defending against gamma ray bursts. The amount of time it actually takes is probably some random variable, and all things considered, how long it took us is probably around average. Earth life existed about 3.5 billion years or more before we came along.
The It's not nearly close enough. The Milgram experiment showed that people preferred science to leaving each other alone. That's the opposite of proving that people prefer killing to science.
The Stanford Prison Experiment showed some dark things about humanity but it didn't prove anything close to the original claim.
A scientific experiment that shows circumstances in which humans are shitbags, does not show that all negative statements about humans are true. That's a total logical disconnect.
He was complimenting you. Ironically, it is you who needs to examine your biases and errors in interpretation.
He's saying that the person you were responding to was spewing self-loathing crap, as evidenced in lines like:
Honestly Humanity is a joke, almost a cancer. [...] WE thrive on hating those that are different or think or worship different.
In other words, he was agreeing with you and you insulted him for it.