Actually, that was exactly my thought (minus the dream) when I saw the abstract of this post. In fact an article published 9 Oct would doubtless have been written some time before that--although I suppose they might rush an article on this topic through, meaning it might have been written (and last updated) only slightly before that date.
I went to the NEJM, and the original article is in fact available: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1.... Oddly, down at the bottom it says "This article was published on May 7, 2014, and updated on May 22, 2014, at NEJM.org." I don't understand that, unless they re-published it in October. Worse, though, none of the quotes in the/. post actually appear in the NEJM article, although the general point of needing early(er) diagnosis does come up.
So I'm starting to smell s.t. fishy in this post. Where are the alleged quotes coming from?
If you read the linked news release (which you should, it's very short), they're not talking about meteor showers, they're talking about the large meteors that blew up with a blast energy > 1kt. There were 33 of these detected in the 14 year study period, of which 9 pairs (= 18 of the blasts) occurred within one day of each other. The assumption of independence argument was invalidated at a very high confidence level, claim the authors.
Not stated in the article is whether the 33 blasts had any connection with known meteor showers (or, I guess, previously unrecognized meteor showers). The original article (here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0452...) does mention this possibility.
I would be remiss not to mention that the statistical analysis may be flawed; a posting claiming just this is here https://astrostatistics.wordpr.... (IANAS.)
No, they weren't thinking that. They knew bullets did it all the time. It was just that passing the sound barrier seemed a very hard thing for humans to do.
In contrast, we don't know of *anything* that goes FTL.
I read an article based on this premise back around 1965 (give or take, it was before the Moon landings). The author modeled the maximum speed that people could travel, beginning perhaps 10,000 BC (running) and going up through Gagarin/ Glenn. By projecting that increasing rate of increase, he "proved" that man would break the speed of light in another 30 years or so.
In fact we reached a maximum of 7miles/sec ( 0.00004c) back in 1968, and have regressed since 1972.
It's sort of like Mark Twain remarks in Life on the Mississippi, extrapolating from how the Mississippi periodically cuts off bends, thereby shortening itself: "...in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod."
You might have a look at the IARPA releases on this, especially https://www.innocentive.com/ar.... Programmers are *not* being asked to release their software rights: "To receive an award, Solvers will not have to transfer their IP rights or grant a license to the Seeker – the purpose of the Challenge is to gauge how far recent advances in speech recognition have come in solving this important problem. With broad participation, this Challenge has the potential to provide IARPA with insights on the best next steps to stimulate research for solving this challenging problem." Of course, if someone does come up with a significant improvement on the state of the art, they might be in a good position to sell it--for >> $50k.
Yeah, I was in that Yacht Club the exact same year. Our ship, the Goldsborough, had two of those guns aimed by mechanical computers; it was decommissioned in 1993, the last of its class in the US Navy, and I'm reasonably certain that her mechanical computers were not replaced with electronic ones (although certainly electronic computers were installed for other purposes). So mechanical analog computers were used until at least then in the US Navy. Several other ships of its class were still in commission in the Australian and German navies (and one or two of the US ships made their way to the Greek navy) into the 21st century, and presumably had those same computers; one of the German ships is now a museum ship, so punkers can probably see the computer. Perhaps gunfire control computers are on display in some other museum.
I don't know whether more recent ships had mechanical computers.
I haven't read the original article, but I'll display my ignorance anyway. There are two ways one could interpret moving from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest: as an absolute pressure change, or as a relative change. The atmospheric pressure at the top of Mt Everest is 33% of sea level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Death_zone), which is a difference of 14.7psi*0.67 = 9.85psi. At the same time it's a relative change of 67%, i.e. the pressure at the top of Everest is 33% of the pressure at sea level.
Comparing that to ascent from underwater to sea level, you could ask for a difference of 9.85 psi or a relative change of 67%. Taking the 9.85 psi diff, since a depth of 34 feet (fresh water) is equivalent to an additional pressure over sea level of 14.7psi (one atmosphere relative, two atmospheres absolute), that would be the equivalent of coming up from 34feet*0.67 = 22feet to the surface. Or you could ask for a relative change of 67%, i.e. going from 100% to 33%. That would mean coming from a depth of 3 atmospheres absolute = 2 atmospheres relative = from 68 feet to the surface.
> 1. "4" does not exist in physical reality. It is a purely mental construct.
First, the OP said nothing about "4" existing in physical reality. Similarly, if God exists, most religions would hold that He does not do so in physical reality. (Which is what makes the Christian doctrine of the incarnation so strange--which is quite different from saying it's impossible, but it does make Christianity different from most--maybe all--other modern religions.)
> 2. Calling an arbitrary event "God" is just stupid, but quite in line with usual theist "argumentation".
I doubt that the OP (nor I) would call God an event. Quite the contrary.
> 3. This is just misdirection. There are valid theories that do not require anything besides random chance.
Chance, as applied to what? Chance/ probability in the abstract suffers from exactly the same problem you pointed out for the number 4: it doesn't exist in physical reality. And yet we exist in a physical reality (well, one could debate that, but you don't seem to be doing so). So chance had to apply _to_ something, and the question is where that something came from. And yes, the "something" here is more abstract than matter, but it had to have some properties to which probability can apply, or else you're still left with no physical reality--just another number.
"any 'universe' that's created by this process is temporary." Fair warning; ours is shutting down on 8 December at 3:17 PM EST. Don't bother paying your mortgage next month.
Thanks, I wondered about that! I had thought that it was more like "When two identical photons are coupled and the phase of one is *measured*, then thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, the phase of the other photon has also been *measured*." Are these statements equivalent?
That was my first thought. I recall seeing the tech do ultrasounds of my pregnant wife, and saying "see, there's the baby, and let's see, it's a girl/boy." I completely had to take their word for it; to me it was like looking at clouds. Admittedly that was a long time ago, maybe the technology is better now.
As for the FDA, I don't know that they should get involved; so long as it's marketed to the public as an interesting gadget/toy, rather than a medical tool.
"The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate, without further ado, to see who is right."
Slashdot Mirror
Where we're going, we don't need... licenses.
Pointer?
The Lathe of Heaven.
Actually, that was exactly my thought (minus the dream) when I saw the abstract of this post. In fact an article published 9 Oct would doubtless have been written some time before that--although I suppose they might rush an article on this topic through, meaning it might have been written (and last updated) only slightly before that date.
I went to the NEJM, and the original article is in fact available: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1.... Oddly, down at the bottom it says "This article was published on May 7, 2014, and updated on May 22, 2014, at NEJM.org." I don't understand that, unless they re-published it in October. Worse, though, none of the quotes in the /. post actually appear in the NEJM article, although the general point of needing early(er) diagnosis does come up.
So I'm starting to smell s.t. fishy in this post. Where are the alleged quotes coming from?
If you read the linked news release (which you should, it's very short), they're not talking about meteor showers, they're talking about the large meteors that blew up with a blast energy > 1kt. There were 33 of these detected in the 14 year study period, of which 9 pairs (= 18 of the blasts) occurred within one day of each other. The assumption of independence argument was invalidated at a very high confidence level, claim the authors.
Not stated in the article is whether the 33 blasts had any connection with known meteor showers (or, I guess, previously unrecognized meteor showers). The original article (here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0452...) does mention this possibility.
I would be remiss not to mention that the statistical analysis may be flawed; a posting claiming just this is here https://astrostatistics.wordpr.... (IANAS.)
Now that I've posted, I see that someone else had already said the same thing (#48454389, immediately below my post right now), and in greater detail.
No, they weren't thinking that. They knew bullets did it all the time. It was just that passing the sound barrier seemed a very hard thing for humans to do.
In contrast, we don't know of *anything* that goes FTL.
I read an article based on this premise back around 1965 (give or take, it was before the Moon landings). The author modeled the maximum speed that people could travel, beginning perhaps 10,000 BC (running) and going up through Gagarin/ Glenn. By projecting that increasing rate of increase, he "proved" that man would break the speed of light in another 30 years or so.
In fact we reached a maximum of 7miles/sec ( 0.00004c) back in 1968, and have regressed since 1972.
It's sort of like Mark Twain remarks in Life on the Mississippi, extrapolating from how the Mississippi periodically cuts off bends, thereby shortening itself: "...in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod."
You're right, of course, but my punch cards are pretty good. Now if I could just find a punch card reader...
Go read the solicitation. They thought of that. It won't work.
Can you explain (without revealing your own stupidity) what you think is so stupid about this?
You might have a look at the IARPA releases on this, especially https://www.innocentive.com/ar.... Programmers are *not* being asked to release their software rights: "To receive an award, Solvers will not have to transfer their IP rights or grant a license to the Seeker – the purpose of the Challenge is to gauge how far recent advances in speech recognition have come in solving this important problem. With broad participation, this Challenge has the potential to provide IARPA with insights on the best next steps to stimulate research for solving this challenging problem." Of course, if someone does come up with a significant improvement on the state of the art, they might be in a good position to sell it--for >> $50k.
Yeah, I was in that Yacht Club the exact same year. Our ship, the Goldsborough, had two of those guns aimed by mechanical computers; it was decommissioned in 1993, the last of its class in the US Navy, and I'm reasonably certain that her mechanical computers were not replaced with electronic ones (although certainly electronic computers were installed for other purposes). So mechanical analog computers were used until at least then in the US Navy. Several other ships of its class were still in commission in the Australian and German navies (and one or two of the US ships made their way to the Greek navy) into the 21st century, and presumably had those same computers; one of the German ships is now a museum ship, so punkers can probably see the computer. Perhaps gunfire control computers are on display in some other museum.
I don't know whether more recent ships had mechanical computers.
s/Bush/Kim Jong Un/g
I haven't read the original article, but I'll display my ignorance anyway. There are two ways one could interpret moving from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest: as an absolute pressure change, or as a relative change. The atmospheric pressure at the top of Mt Everest is 33% of sea level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Death_zone), which is a difference of 14.7psi*0.67 = 9.85psi. At the same time it's a relative change of 67%, i.e. the pressure at the top of Everest is 33% of the pressure at sea level.
Comparing that to ascent from underwater to sea level, you could ask for a difference of 9.85 psi or a relative change of 67%. Taking the 9.85 psi diff, since a depth of 34 feet (fresh water) is equivalent to an additional pressure over sea level of 14.7psi (one atmosphere relative, two atmospheres absolute), that would be the equivalent of coming up from 34feet*0.67 = 22feet to the surface. Or you could ask for a relative change of 67%, i.e. going from 100% to 33%. That would mean coming from a depth of 3 atmospheres absolute = 2 atmospheres relative = from 68 feet to the surface.
It might be if you printed it in the right Ront.
"...the theist idiots are at their usual game... suppression of dissent." Did they manage to erase someone's post?
> 1. "4" does not exist in physical reality. It is a purely mental construct.
First, the OP said nothing about "4" existing in physical reality. Similarly, if God exists, most religions would hold that He does not do so in physical reality. (Which is what makes the Christian doctrine of the incarnation so strange--which is quite different from saying it's impossible, but it does make Christianity different from most--maybe all--other modern religions.)
> 2. Calling an arbitrary event "God" is just stupid, but quite in line with usual theist "argumentation".
I doubt that the OP (nor I) would call God an event. Quite the contrary.
> 3. This is just misdirection. There are valid theories that do not require anything besides random chance.
Chance, as applied to what? Chance/ probability in the abstract suffers from exactly the same problem you pointed out for the number 4: it doesn't exist in physical reality. And yet we exist in a physical reality (well, one could debate that, but you don't seem to be doing so). So chance had to apply _to_ something, and the question is where that something came from. And yes, the "something" here is more abstract than matter, but it had to have some properties to which probability can apply, or else you're still left with no physical reality--just another number.
"any 'universe' that's created by this process is temporary." Fair warning; ours is shutting down on 8 December at 3:17 PM EST. Don't bother paying your mortgage next month.
I assume this was sarc. But if not, the point is that the conjoined particles aren't even near each other.
Thanks, I wondered about that! I had thought that it was more like "When two identical photons are coupled and the phase of one is *measured*, then thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, the phase of the other photon has also been *measured*." Are these statements equivalent?
Might help to let some air in the bulb
That was my first thought. I recall seeing the tech do ultrasounds of my pregnant wife, and saying "see, there's the baby, and let's see, it's a girl/boy." I completely had to take their word for it; to me it was like looking at clouds. Admittedly that was a long time ago, maybe the technology is better now.
As for the FDA, I don't know that they should get involved; so long as it's marketed to the public as an interesting gadget/toy, rather than a medical tool.
In case someone doesn't catch the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....
"The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate, without further ado, to see who is right."
And I'm hoping the next version of Microsoft Office will fix the ugliness that is Office 2013. Hoping, but not expecting.
(And yes, I use LibreOffice--at home.)