The thing is, the bell can't be unrung. He said it and everyone knows it. There is no scenario where he stays and the team doesn't go into a death spiral and damage the rest of the league with it.
Perhaps it's time he learned that rich white assholes are a dime a dozen.
Neither is tipping off the DEA, but they do that all the time. Meanwhile, they keep telling us that preventing exactly this sort of thing is why they spy on us.
You are actually at the point where you are dismissing things that you cannot actually say don't exist.
Consider how little you would need to perturb probabilities to change the course of evolution. Yet you would leave no evidence behind at all. Everything that happened COULD have happened by chance. People win in Vegas all the time. Some win more than others. Some win a lot more. It all falls within the odds. People who win really big are routinely banned because they MIGHT be cheating, but it cannot be proven.
The funny thing is, God, FSM, the great Gazoo, whatever could be loading the dice and you will never be able to prove/disprove it. It isn't up for testing so it clearly isn't science. Quantum physics shows that some things will never be measurable to a certainty. We can never do better than put odds on the thing.
The subjective is real as well, but isn't up for testing. However, the subjective can affect the real world. It does every single day because people's actions are affected by it. Some live or die as a result of it. Prayer affects it. To deny it's existence is to look silly since each and every person can confirm for themselves that it exists.
For all of that, it is not within the realm of science. It cannot be tested or measured. Psychology approaches most closely, but even that gets sneers from the hard sciences. Even sociologists sneer. But every conscious person knows it exists.
As for pain, yes much of the physiology can be mapped and observed. Yet some people can learn to not 'mind' pain to some degree or another. It's still there, the physiological reaction still happens, they just don't mind it so much. Everyone does it to a degree, that's why adults rarely cry inconsolably when they bump their knee, but some take it to an extreme.
None of what I say is meant to devalue science. I value it a great deal. I just know it has limits and like to use the right tool for the right job.
No. They LITERALLY won't be worth a Tinker's damn anymore. Their strength is exactly in a normal hesitation to use them. If nobody would normally use them at all, they convey a much stronger meaning on the occasions they must be resorted to. A word can't carry shock value and be uttered in every other sentence at the same time.
Note that darn is often used as the G rated version of damn, but seems entirely inadequate if you should hammer your thumb. It means the same thing roughly, so why doesn't it distract from the pain? Because it's not actually a curse, that's why.
And for that matter, "your mother sews socks that smell" is just too funny to ever have shock value.
Consider steganography. Correctly done, it is literally impossible to distinguish the signal from noise unless you know it is there. In other words, if you have faith you will be enlightened:-)
Sure, you can do FMRIs and perhaps even deep brain electrodes when someone reports that they are happy or sad, but you still are just looking at a set of responses and completely missing the sensation of actually being happy. You take on faith that what they feel is what you feel. You still won't be able to say if anyone but you actually feels emotion.
Heisenberg isn't JUST a limit on precision of measurement, it has real world consequences. It is a limit on the precision of reality if you will. Sometimes, particles 'tunnel' through a barrier they "can't" pass through. It has been observed with things as large as a sodium atom. For simple enough cases, the probability can be computed. One day, science may be able to peel another layer back and see deeper, but we can't actually know that it will.
You describe the placebo effect, but science has little idea how it actually works, only that it exists. Likewise, most doctors recognize the will to live as a real thing that can affect patient outcome but none can even begin to explain how it works. Science can still be surprised. It's amazing how long it took to discover that ulcers are caused by an infection.
Much of the strength is going out of the words due to extreme overuse, much as a tinker's damn isn't worth very much. BUT when you're not addressing your friends, you should be aware that there are others who will take them at their traditional meaning and strength. As I said, I wouldn't swear in an interview, for example.
Alas, yes, many parents don't properly understand swearing, cursing and vulgarity either. That's why I qualified with originally.
A child may understand that a word can be used in anger, but is unlikely to have the necessary sense of proportion to grasp how much anger they are expressing (It is doubtful that a young child is even capable of the level of anger or disgust required for some of the words).
An interesting thing about swearing, it raises the threshold of pain. If you dilute them until they're just words, what will you say when you hammer your thumb?
The words are NOT inherently bad. If what they imply is what you want to say, they're just perfect. If I think someone is unworthy, I will use vulgarities. If something truly does deserve to be cut off from all that is good and burned for all eternity, I will damn it.
Don't use them in an interview for the same reason you don't call the interviewer 'butthead' or 'garbage breath'.
You may be confusing the value judgement based on children being forbidden to use them. That is not because the word is bad, but because the parents don't believe the child is yet mature enough to properly understand what they are saying (at least that is the original reason). If a child doesn't grasp that death is final, how are they to understand eternal damnation (even as a metaphore)?
In Space 1999, future Earth (when they passed by it) had devices looking a lot more like fondle slabs. All of Apple's patents are based on look and feel, so the 2001 device applies just fine. The Palm pilot had the form, but not the function due to the technology available at that time. Had capacitive touch in appropriate resolutions been available, the resemblance would have been striking. The design was obvious then, but the tech wasn't there yet.
It's funny how minor differences are enough for you to excuse Apple of copying, but not enough to excuse Samsung.
You'll never get there. Connotation is not only nearly ubiquitous, it is the part of our language that allows it to be used to communicate with precision. It has existed since the beginning of language.
There was also the issue of capacitive touchscreens getting to a reasonable price point. The less obvious aspect would be the public liking the fondleslab style, but fashion isn't subject to patent or copyright. The basic design appeared in sci-fi for decades including 2001, Space 1999, and Star Trek.
For that matter, consider the Palm Pilot. It used a stylus (commonly) due to the inferior touch screens available at that time, but I did see people occasionally use their fingers.
Back in the '80s and '90s, some gasoline already had 10% ethanol in it as a cheap additive to make it meet requirements. At the time, it wasn't called E10 and didn't encounter the derision of conservatives. It's amazing how evil it became once the bad ol' government endorsed the market's solution.
Or it means you don't understand the words and the full meanings behind them.
'Shit' is a simple vulgarity. By using that word, you are implying that the the listener/reader is worthy of no better (or that you are yourself worthy of no better). Was that your intent? If not, consider what precision means to an engineer.
It seems the market has come to a sub-optimal solution in the case of the green bells then.
If food costs go up, expect to increase the budget for food stamps as well. All told, you're going to be out more than the 2-5 bucks a year the internet subsidy would have cost you.
A difficulty here is that you are attempting to apply science to something that is not within the realm of science. If it can be measured and tested, it is science. If it cannot, it is religion. That doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing in religion, it just means science (at least within our current understanding) can't touch it.
Before you write it all off though, consider things like emotions. We all know they exist because we all feel them. But because they are a subjective experience by nature, science can neither confirm nor deny them. It can at most quantify a statistical effect on behavior that may or may not be felt in the subject as an emotion.
As for our meteorologist, he has no idea what the additional parameters are. If he did, he could close the gap and make perfect forecasts.
I have seen the idea that religion and magic live inside those impenetrable probabilities much like a signal may lie in the noise floor. It's there, but you can't prove it. It may have effect in a manner similar to the way insiders used to embezzle from banks by pocketing the rounding errors.
From a more utilitarian standpoint, if a religious belief results in less crime or better social cohesiveness, do we really want it gone?
Then there's things like string theory. Thus far, it has made no novel predictions and it's potential to ever make a prediction has been legitimately questioned.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, the bell can't be unrung. He said it and everyone knows it. There is no scenario where he stays and the team doesn't go into a death spiral and damage the rest of the league with it.
Perhaps it's time he learned that rich white assholes are a dime a dozen.
Neither is tipping off the DEA, but they do that all the time. Meanwhile, they keep telling us that preventing exactly this sort of thing is why they spy on us.
You are actually at the point where you are dismissing things that you cannot actually say don't exist.
Consider how little you would need to perturb probabilities to change the course of evolution. Yet you would leave no evidence behind at all. Everything that happened COULD have happened by chance. People win in Vegas all the time. Some win more than others. Some win a lot more. It all falls within the odds. People who win really big are routinely banned because they MIGHT be cheating, but it cannot be proven.
The funny thing is, God, FSM, the great Gazoo, whatever could be loading the dice and you will never be able to prove/disprove it. It isn't up for testing so it clearly isn't science. Quantum physics shows that some things will never be measurable to a certainty. We can never do better than put odds on the thing.
The subjective is real as well, but isn't up for testing. However, the subjective can affect the real world. It does every single day because people's actions are affected by it. Some live or die as a result of it. Prayer affects it. To deny it's existence is to look silly since each and every person can confirm for themselves that it exists.
For all of that, it is not within the realm of science. It cannot be tested or measured. Psychology approaches most closely, but even that gets sneers from the hard sciences. Even sociologists sneer. But every conscious person knows it exists.
As for pain, yes much of the physiology can be mapped and observed. Yet some people can learn to not 'mind' pain to some degree or another. It's still there, the physiological reaction still happens, they just don't mind it so much. Everyone does it to a degree, that's why adults rarely cry inconsolably when they bump their knee, but some take it to an extreme.
None of what I say is meant to devalue science. I value it a great deal. I just know it has limits and like to use the right tool for the right job.
I have presented examples going back to the '60s.
No. They LITERALLY won't be worth a Tinker's damn anymore. Their strength is exactly in a normal hesitation to use them. If nobody would normally use them at all, they convey a much stronger meaning on the occasions they must be resorted to. A word can't carry shock value and be uttered in every other sentence at the same time.
Note that darn is often used as the G rated version of damn, but seems entirely inadequate if you should hammer your thumb. It means the same thing roughly, so why doesn't it distract from the pain? Because it's not actually a curse, that's why.
And for that matter, "your mother sews socks that smell" is just too funny to ever have shock value.
After 30 years, what makes you think the seal wasn't just past it's useful lifetime?
Because it's a funny name for them and seems more in line with many of the users actual purpose in owning one.
I didn't coin the term BTW.
A lot of that was a matter of the threshold of pain. Apple was more willing to go with an expensive phone.
Consider steganography. Correctly done, it is literally impossible to distinguish the signal from noise unless you know it is there. In other words, if you have faith you will be enlightened :-)
Sure, you can do FMRIs and perhaps even deep brain electrodes when someone reports that they are happy or sad, but you still are just looking at a set of responses and completely missing the sensation of actually being happy. You take on faith that what they feel is what you feel. You still won't be able to say if anyone but you actually feels emotion.
Heisenberg isn't JUST a limit on precision of measurement, it has real world consequences. It is a limit on the precision of reality if you will. Sometimes, particles 'tunnel' through a barrier they "can't" pass through. It has been observed with things as large as a sodium atom. For simple enough cases, the probability can be computed. One day, science may be able to peel another layer back and see deeper, but we can't actually know that it will.
You describe the placebo effect, but science has little idea how it actually works, only that it exists. Likewise, most doctors recognize the will to live as a real thing that can affect patient outcome but none can even begin to explain how it works. Science can still be surprised. It's amazing how long it took to discover that ulcers are caused by an infection.
Much of the strength is going out of the words due to extreme overuse, much as a tinker's damn isn't worth very much. BUT when you're not addressing your friends, you should be aware that there are others who will take them at their traditional meaning and strength. As I said, I wouldn't swear in an interview, for example.
Alas, yes, many parents don't properly understand swearing, cursing and vulgarity either. That's why I qualified with originally.
A child may understand that a word can be used in anger, but is unlikely to have the necessary sense of proportion to grasp how much anger they are expressing (It is doubtful that a young child is even capable of the level of anger or disgust required for some of the words).
An interesting thing about swearing, it raises the threshold of pain. If you dilute them until they're just words, what will you say when you hammer your thumb?
The words are NOT inherently bad. If what they imply is what you want to say, they're just perfect. If I think someone is unworthy, I will use vulgarities. If something truly does deserve to be cut off from all that is good and burned for all eternity, I will damn it.
Don't use them in an interview for the same reason you don't call the interviewer 'butthead' or 'garbage breath'.
You may be confusing the value judgement based on children being forbidden to use them. That is not because the word is bad, but because the parents don't believe the child is yet mature enough to properly understand what they are saying (at least that is the original reason). If a child doesn't grasp that death is final, how are they to understand eternal damnation (even as a metaphore)?
In Space 1999, future Earth (when they passed by it) had devices looking a lot more like fondle slabs. All of Apple's patents are based on look and feel, so the 2001 device applies just fine. The Palm pilot had the form, but not the function due to the technology available at that time. Had capacitive touch in appropriate resolutions been available, the resemblance would have been striking. The design was obvious then, but the tech wasn't there yet.
It's funny how minor differences are enough for you to excuse Apple of copying, but not enough to excuse Samsung.
You'll never get there. Connotation is not only nearly ubiquitous, it is the part of our language that allows it to be used to communicate with precision. It has existed since the beginning of language.
There was also the issue of capacitive touchscreens getting to a reasonable price point. The less obvious aspect would be the public liking the fondleslab style, but fashion isn't subject to patent or copyright. The basic design appeared in sci-fi for decades including 2001, Space 1999, and Star Trek.
For that matter, consider the Palm Pilot. It used a stylus (commonly) due to the inferior touch screens available at that time, but I did see people occasionally use their fingers.
Vulgar = common with (for the last few centuries) the implication of poor quality when used in English.
Did I say 'bad'? I believe I said vulgar.
Continue in ignorance if you will, perhaps the parenthetical part of what I said does apply after all.
Back in the '80s and '90s, some gasoline already had 10% ethanol in it as a cheap additive to make it meet requirements. At the time, it wasn't called E10 and didn't encounter the derision of conservatives. It's amazing how evil it became once the bad ol' government endorsed the market's solution.
Or it means you don't understand the words and the full meanings behind them.
'Shit' is a simple vulgarity. By using that word, you are implying that the the listener/reader is worthy of no better (or that you are yourself worthy of no better). Was that your intent? If not, consider what precision means to an engineer.
Perfect, they are now ready to join the "men at work".
Would you consider someone who rats out the Italian mafia a snitch?
A dead man walking.
It seems the market has come to a sub-optimal solution in the case of the green bells then.
If food costs go up, expect to increase the budget for food stamps as well. All told, you're going to be out more than the 2-5 bucks a year the internet subsidy would have cost you.
How about if nobody has stolen anything?
I don't think anyone objects to Apple also using the obvious designs, they just object to them claiming an exclusive right to the obvious.
A difficulty here is that you are attempting to apply science to something that is not within the realm of science. If it can be measured and tested, it is science. If it cannot, it is religion. That doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing in religion, it just means science (at least within our current understanding) can't touch it.
Before you write it all off though, consider things like emotions. We all know they exist because we all feel them. But because they are a subjective experience by nature, science can neither confirm nor deny them. It can at most quantify a statistical effect on behavior that may or may not be felt in the subject as an emotion.
As for our meteorologist, he has no idea what the additional parameters are. If he did, he could close the gap and make perfect forecasts.
I have seen the idea that religion and magic live inside those impenetrable probabilities much like a signal may lie in the noise floor. It's there, but you can't prove it. It may have effect in a manner similar to the way insiders used to embezzle from banks by pocketing the rounding errors.
From a more utilitarian standpoint, if a religious belief results in less crime or better social cohesiveness, do we really want it gone?
Then there's things like string theory. Thus far, it has made no novel predictions and it's potential to ever make a prediction has been legitimately questioned.
Then you can expect the cost of food to go up.
So why not Atlanta? Very little union activity there, still a reasonable density. Miami?