If you're unwilling to examine that elegance as well as the formulas, you're pretty short sighted.
You should say "If one is unwilling", because I'm sure you do not intend your admonition to apply to me. I appreciate the elegance many formulas. For example, one of my personal favorites is Boltzmann's definition of entropy, S=k*lnW. However, as elegant as many formulas seem, evidence of god they are not.
One adds those things together that can be separated. Mass and velocity are intrinsic to an object, so they can't be separated. In other words, if I accelerate one part of an [inelastic] object, I accelerate all parts that same amount. For example, if I have a 12 kg bowling ball moving 10 km/hr, all 12 kg have to go the 10 km/hr. So, the simplest way to do the accounting is 10*12.
you don't address the original question: whether mathematics is "invented" or "discovered"
It depends on what you mean by those words. Did we invent the wheel or simply discover it? Its a very philosophical indeed, but I'm not so sure we achieve anything by trying to answer it, especially since, in the end, it boils down to semantics. In such cases, I usually refer to American Heritage as that is what came with my Mac.
The fact that the exponent is exactly 2 (for a mass at rest) is still a gobsmackingly non-trivial idea
Though the math itself is non-trivial, the integer 2 as the exponent is as trivial as the same exponent found in the definition of kinetic energy (1/2(mv**2)), which arises from the integration of p=mv. So, if you took the mass of an object and integrated over dv in p=mv from -c to +c, you would get e=mc**2. The profound part is that the speed of light serves for the limits of the integration. Of course if we had found any other number as the limits, we would be equally dazzled by that number. The exponent, however, is not so profound.
I have mod points and I'd really love to mod you down, but I figure I'd educate you instead. (Of course you are probably wondering why I would mod you down and that you think your suggestions are intellectual, but they make about as much sense as racial supremacy arguments, which should be modded down as well.)
Lots of the real neat roundedness of physics (different from math, though many get them confused) comes from how we define (don't forget that word, "define") properties that we require to explain phenomena or make predictions. For example, lets imagine that it is many years ago and we are the first to notice that it is hard to stop a bowling ball. Perhaps in our past we have already came up with a concept called velocity and one called mass. Clearly, the difficulty to stop the bowling ball is related to both, and we make two observations:
The more velocity it has, the harder it is to stop.
The heavier it weighs, the harder it is to stop.
So we can take these observations into account and define a quantity which describes "hardness to stop" and give it a one-word name, like "momentum". The simplest formula that combines its component properties of mass and velocity is multiplication of these values. Or, to put it in mathematical terms p=mv.
Now, someone who has studied the bible more than he has studied physics will look at the simplicity and elegance of the formula and call it proof that god exists. However, in reality its a matter of a simple and self-consistent method of accounting invented (or discovered if you like that word better) by people. So now please move along and convince yourself that some other area of science is proof of god. Hopefully someone else will correct you there as well.
Call me naive, but is this a question that is actually asked? In what situations? For what purpose?
Some people here believe in "affirmative action" which intends to grant special privilege to those who answer that question correctly. In college I accidentally made myself eligible for untold scholarships when I applied for some financial aid, read too fast, and put a check in the box next to "American". It turns out that the form was not so well formatted and the next line of the form started "Indian". After I got enough scholarship offers, I realized what had happened and how I remembered that "American" seemed a bit unusual for an answer to "Race" but that it seemed the most correct at the time.
are we warming the planet that it is going to burn upor are we cooling the planet that it is going into the next ice age???
I certainly hope it cools off. I'm not one for hot weather. On the other hand, I'm only getting older and I suspect I'll turn into an old-person lizard in due time. So maybe I am luckier than I think. Also, if we fry the planet, we probably won't be able to do it before I'm dead, so big whoop. We could fry every last living organism on the surface, but we'll probably kill ourselves before we pollute the ocean enough to kill that stuff that lives off the sulfur coming out of deep sea vents. This is the planet's saving grace in my opinion. This stuff will serve as the seeds for the next great rise of organic life on earth. And even if we manage to kill those off with dioxin or PCBs, there are still organisms that live in deep oil deposits and similar foreboding habitats. The fortitude of life amazes me sometimes. I have to change out my ethidium bromide stock every now and then because it grows some filamentous culture. So the devastation of the planet is not so bad when you look at the big picture. But don't have kids so you don't feel guilty, just in case.
Right. We can't resell copies of it. In other words, we don't own the copyright.
But you would probably further argue that ownership means the right to listen to it, correct? Or would you lump this in with copy? That is, to listen to it, it needs to be transformed into a copy as sound waves before it hits our ears and becomes a copy of the music in our memory? But does it stop there? Are we in possession of stolen music if we listen to it in our heads at will (as in "that song won't get out of my head--you know the one, from the Charlie Brown movie where they went to camp").
But, where does it end, Charlie Brown? Is this what artists intend? I would argue, having written some songs myself, and having my own art grace the cover of magazines, that this is not what artists intend. I would suspect that other artists are like me in that they feel like their work exists for the world and that its value is not in the money required to purchase a copy of it, but in the pleasure or thought it provokes.
With Apple, the logic is, and always has been, "Don't look at us, look at MICROSOFT!
You should be fair. I updated to OS X 10.5 without entering a key. Apple may have its flaws, but OS activation is not one (yet). That's probably why I haven't switched (yet).
MacOS 7.0, before it was patched, would permanently corrupt itself if you removed a Font from the System Folder.
No, worse than that, the old Apple IIe we had in the eighth grade had a back-arrow that I thought was "Backspace", or maybe "Esc". If you touched it, the damn thing would power-cycle. Now THAT's shitty.
Of course, I'm not even going to get into the Altair we had in 5th grade or the Sinclair 1000 I had at home.
And they say Linux is too technical and complicated for the masses...
[In voice of officemate] "Could you please post instructions to get my network printer going on XP? Its a xerox phaser 8400. I've done everything. It has an IP address, but when I type it in the box it says "printer not found on network". But it "is found on network" because my friend is already printing to it from his OS X box. I put in the disk for the printer, and I think it installed something, but then, when I went to add a printer it didn't work. Could you spend the three hours its going to take for you to help me?"
And they say windows is too complicated for the masses.
Roughly 80% of those present didn't want to vote yes.
It appears they should have been very explicit about that, doesn't it? It also appears that we will see this pattern happen again, when another committee leaves room for a ratification and then sees such ratification. It now seems like any future committees should recognize the fact that any indecision will result in a ratification and to ignore this fact would be irresponsible given the pattern we have come to expect. We should also understand that I do not make the rules, but only describe them.
You[r] logic doesn't make sense and I think you too also don't understand the situation.
I do understand the situation. They should have come to the consensus that "no comment is satisfactorily resolved." They should now and in the future be aware: Any indecision (non-consensus) will result in undesirable action. This is the message and this is the reality. Complaining abut the undesirable action after the fact won't help. Do you understand that? I apologize for the fact that I can't apologize for how the world really works.
I see. You are rather correct here. Let me attempt to rephrase your point, using my karma to help you communicate your message because it is an obviously important message.
You are saying that future committees charged with deciding the fate of OOXML should take into consideration the fact that, were they decide to not vote (or decide not to decide, if you will), they face the very real prospect of having the decision made for them. You are saying that this pattern has been established in the past and is likely to repeat in the future. Yes, this is quite a good point and should be understood by many, especially by those who might be future committee members themselves.
I would also add to your point, to address any potential objections, that you describe not how the world should be, but rather how it really is. In other words, though we would like a no-vote to perhaps indicate no-action, it likely will not and likely will result in undesirable action. I'm sure you intended this point to be implicit in your discussion, but I am taking the liberty of stating it directly.
Yes, in a prefect world, NO VOTING would result in NO ACTION. But the world isn't perfect. So, since the world isn't perfect, this time (and others) NO VOTING resulted in a BASTARDIZED PROCESS. Do you see that? Do you see why future committees might want to consider this when they unwisely decide not to decide? This reality is what the OP is trying to describe (or rather, successfully describing). Remember, it does not matter how the world should be, it only matters how the world really is. That is the message of the OP.
Now, why am I posting so many times? So that whoever is trying to crush the message of the grandparent runs out of mod points. I think they are doing it because of an agenda. If you have a mod point, go way up to the OP and mod him up, because he is dead on.
Just curious, do you apply this policy to rest of your life too?
Here is where you are obviously less intellectually adept than the OP. See, it doesn't matter what policies the OP has, just what the purchased politicians have. It is these politicians that do not believe in an implicit no. This is what the OP speaks to. HE IS NOT DESCRIBING HIMSELF HERE! Is it possible for you to understand the difference or are you really that dense?
Dear moderators: Please mod parent out of flamebait. Here is why: parent is absolutely correct. As we will witness (and have witnessed), every "committee" who is asked to ratify or reject OOXML is going to be unable to reach a consensus because the standard is flawed. Then, some purchased politician is going to declare the standard accepted despite the committee's protestations and hesitations (the latter will be fatal). Then we are going to see a bunch of hullabaloo on slashdot where people wonder aloud how such a travesty could come to pass. This pattern should be apparent to all but the most dense among us.
But here, for the first time as far as I can tell, parent is explaining why we see this pattern in the simplest possible terms. But slashdotters moderate him (or her) to flamebait (and troll, if you read below). Why is this happening? In other words (1) why are these committees of supposedly bright people getting railroaded repeatedly by purchased politicians, and (2) why is someone pointing out the pattern getting quashed on slashdot? What is happening here?
Now, before you use a mod point either way on this post or parent, first attempt to answer those questions. If you can, respond with an intelligent answer. If you can't, move on or mod parent up.
Brilliant. Why you were labeled troll is beyond me--perhaps someone at microsoft had mod points and didn't want other potential committee members to see your analysis.
The governments only acting afraid because terrorism has proved terrifying for so many people over the past few years.
Your assessment of distribution of child pornography is dead-on. But it seems that you are confused about "terrorism". Acts of terrorism are bad and should be punished. But "terrorism" these days is a word that is brandied about carelessly for power and profit. For instance, if I am of Muslim decent, encrypt all of my emails, and affiliate exclusively with other Muslims from certain countries, then I would be labeled a "potential terrorist", though I may not have any desire or plans to commit or endorse any act of terrorism. Now, this label, "potential terrorist" will stick and people will become confused over time as to the exact meaning of the word potential, and then I will become simply a "terrorist". Now, with a terrorist, potential or not, you have an enemy. And enemies are what a government needs to expand. They need wars on drugs, wars on piracy, wars on terrorism. Governments, like any other entity, have a desire to grow and attain more power. So they prolifically label people, words, and thoughts, and even property, with the word "terrorism" because so many people, like you, confuse the word with the act. This is why "terrroism = your government wants you to be afraid". They need your fear because fear is the greatest motivator.
It's interesting that you say your assumptions are the cause of your flawed result when, at the time, you dismissed such concerns right off the bat as negligible.
"At this point, it doesn't really matter too much what the prior is, just that we have one. We'll see that after a few rounds of calculations, this prior washes out pretty quickly."
I see now--you never even bothered to understand the math. Go back and see exactly *which* prior I was talking about. Or is such quoting out of context a mainstay technique of your crude rhetoric?
Nice job using my post to get yourself a +5 insightful, though.
Malice could be the only explanation given those assumptions (which we now know were wrong) because the cutting happened in places greatly separated in geography. Outside of coincidence (which had a finite likelihood given my assumptions), the only explanation for such hugely separated events would be human, and hence malice. Also, "conspiracy" is two or more people working together secretly and illegally, so its a loaded word. Cutting cables would be illegal and I reckon it would take more than one person to cut them, so any malicious cable cutting would be a conspiracy by necessity. But, on/. you can get labeled a conspiracy theorist just by defining the word, so you have to be careful how you use it.
Plus it irks me when people mis-apply scientific/mathematical principals principals in everyday discussions to disingenuously infer a false appeal to authority.
You mean "disingenuously imply a false appeal to authority". One who speaks or write things "implies" things, those reading or listening "infer". To use the term correctly, for example, one would correctly say that you consistently infer a lot of meaning where there is none. Along with writing more carefully, I strongly suggest you go back and read my posts carefully. If you compare yours to mine, you will see that I give all of my assumptions and quantify them and repeatedly ask what assumptions you would make. You never gave any. Worse yet, you use this thread to propagate some dichotomy wherein the impounding of a couple of boats "prove" you "right" and me "wrong". Now, just because I know it gets under your unusually thin skin, I still assert my math was correct. The assumptions may have been wrong, but I defended those with the best knowledge I could find. You, on the other hand, lazily made assertions and did not offer any alternative assumptions in any quantitative way. You never provided a number. Go look and see. That's lazy, and, in my opinion, disingenuous.
If you had even one single brain cell up in your thick Neanderthal skull, you would have realized that I didn't say anything about "who". So basically, you are an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
You should say "If one is unwilling", because I'm sure you do not intend your admonition to apply to me. I appreciate the elegance many formulas. For example, one of my personal favorites is Boltzmann's definition of entropy, S=k*lnW. However, as elegant as many formulas seem, evidence of god they are not.
One adds those things together that can be separated. Mass and velocity are intrinsic to an object, so they can't be separated. In other words, if I accelerate one part of an [inelastic] object, I accelerate all parts that same amount. For example, if I have a 12 kg bowling ball moving 10 km/hr, all 12 kg have to go the 10 km/hr. So, the simplest way to do the accounting is 10*12.
you don't address the original question: whether mathematics is "invented" or "discovered"It depends on what you mean by those words. Did we invent the wheel or simply discover it? Its a very philosophical indeed, but I'm not so sure we achieve anything by trying to answer it, especially since, in the end, it boils down to semantics. In such cases, I usually refer to American Heritage as that is what came with my Mac.
Though the math itself is non-trivial, the integer 2 as the exponent is as trivial as the same exponent found in the definition of kinetic energy (1/2(mv**2)), which arises from the integration of p=mv. So, if you took the mass of an object and integrated over dv in p=mv from -c to +c, you would get e=mc**2. The profound part is that the speed of light serves for the limits of the integration. Of course if we had found any other number as the limits, we would be equally dazzled by that number. The exponent, however, is not so profound.
I have mod points and I'd really love to mod you down, but I figure I'd educate you instead. (Of course you are probably wondering why I would mod you down and that you think your suggestions are intellectual, but they make about as much sense as racial supremacy arguments, which should be modded down as well.)
Lots of the real neat roundedness of physics (different from math, though many get them confused) comes from how we define (don't forget that word, "define") properties that we require to explain phenomena or make predictions. For example, lets imagine that it is many years ago and we are the first to notice that it is hard to stop a bowling ball. Perhaps in our past we have already came up with a concept called velocity and one called mass. Clearly, the difficulty to stop the bowling ball is related to both, and we make two observations:
So we can take these observations into account and define a quantity which describes "hardness to stop" and give it a one-word name, like "momentum". The simplest formula that combines its component properties of mass and velocity is multiplication of these values. Or, to put it in mathematical terms p=mv.
Now, someone who has studied the bible more than he has studied physics will look at the simplicity and elegance of the formula and call it proof that god exists. However, in reality its a matter of a simple and self-consistent method of accounting invented (or discovered if you like that word better) by people. So now please move along and convince yourself that some other area of science is proof of god. Hopefully someone else will correct you there as well.
If you frequent McDonald's, you already produce gas, meat, and plastic in a bio-reactor, so this isn't new technology.
Some people here believe in "affirmative action" which intends to grant special privilege to those who answer that question correctly. In college I accidentally made myself eligible for untold scholarships when I applied for some financial aid, read too fast, and put a check in the box next to "American". It turns out that the form was not so well formatted and the next line of the form started "Indian". After I got enough scholarship offers, I realized what had happened and how I remembered that "American" seemed a bit unusual for an answer to "Race" but that it seemed the most correct at the time.
I certainly hope it cools off. I'm not one for hot weather. On the other hand, I'm only getting older and I suspect I'll turn into an old-person lizard in due time. So maybe I am luckier than I think. Also, if we fry the planet, we probably won't be able to do it before I'm dead, so big whoop. We could fry every last living organism on the surface, but we'll probably kill ourselves before we pollute the ocean enough to kill that stuff that lives off the sulfur coming out of deep sea vents. This is the planet's saving grace in my opinion. This stuff will serve as the seeds for the next great rise of organic life on earth. And even if we manage to kill those off with dioxin or PCBs, there are still organisms that live in deep oil deposits and similar foreboding habitats. The fortitude of life amazes me sometimes. I have to change out my ethidium bromide stock every now and then because it grows some filamentous culture. So the devastation of the planet is not so bad when you look at the big picture. But don't have kids so you don't feel guilty, just in case.
A more /. style grand welcoming gesture would be to introduce them to the acronym GIYF and let them figure it all out for themselves.
Outside of the messed up formatting, this is the best I've read in a long while on /.
Right. We can't resell copies of it. In other words, we don't own the copyright.
But you would probably further argue that ownership means the right to listen to it, correct? Or would you lump this in with copy? That is, to listen to it, it needs to be transformed into a copy as sound waves before it hits our ears and becomes a copy of the music in our memory? But does it stop there? Are we in possession of stolen music if we listen to it in our heads at will (as in "that song won't get out of my head--you know the one, from the Charlie Brown movie where they went to camp").
But, where does it end, Charlie Brown? Is this what artists intend? I would argue, having written some songs myself, and having my own art grace the cover of magazines, that this is not what artists intend. I would suspect that other artists are like me in that they feel like their work exists for the world and that its value is not in the money required to purchase a copy of it, but in the pleasure or thought it provokes.
You should be fair. I updated to OS X 10.5 without entering a key. Apple may have its flaws, but OS activation is not one (yet). That's probably why I haven't switched (yet).
No, worse than that, the old Apple IIe we had in the eighth grade had a back-arrow that I thought was "Backspace", or maybe "Esc". If you touched it, the damn thing would power-cycle. Now THAT's shitty.
Of course, I'm not even going to get into the Altair we had in 5th grade or the Sinclair 1000 I had at home.
[In voice of officemate] "Could you please post instructions to get my network printer going on XP? Its a xerox phaser 8400. I've done everything. It has an IP address, but when I type it in the box it says "printer not found on network". But it "is found on network" because my friend is already printing to it from his OS X box. I put in the disk for the printer, and I think it installed something, but then, when I went to add a printer it didn't work. Could you spend the three hours its going to take for you to help me?"
And they say windows is too complicated for the masses.
It appears they should have been very explicit about that, doesn't it? It also appears that we will see this pattern happen again, when another committee leaves room for a ratification and then sees such ratification. It now seems like any future committees should recognize the fact that any indecision will result in a ratification and to ignore this fact would be irresponsible given the pattern we have come to expect. We should also understand that I do not make the rules, but only describe them.
I do understand the situation. They should have come to the consensus that "no comment is satisfactorily resolved." They should now and in the future be aware: Any indecision (non-consensus) will result in undesirable action. This is the message and this is the reality. Complaining abut the undesirable action after the fact won't help. Do you understand that? I apologize for the fact that I can't apologize for how the world really works.
I see. You are rather correct here. Let me attempt to rephrase your point, using my karma to help you communicate your message because it is an obviously important message.
You are saying that future committees charged with deciding the fate of OOXML should take into consideration the fact that, were they decide to not vote (or decide not to decide, if you will), they face the very real prospect of having the decision made for them. You are saying that this pattern has been established in the past and is likely to repeat in the future. Yes, this is quite a good point and should be understood by many, especially by those who might be future committee members themselves.
I would also add to your point, to address any potential objections, that you describe not how the world should be, but rather how it really is. In other words, though we would like a no-vote to perhaps indicate no-action, it likely will not and likely will result in undesirable action. I'm sure you intended this point to be implicit in your discussion, but I am taking the liberty of stating it directly.
Yes, in a prefect world, NO VOTING would result in NO ACTION. But the world isn't perfect. So, since the world isn't perfect, this time (and others) NO VOTING resulted in a BASTARDIZED PROCESS. Do you see that? Do you see why future committees might want to consider this when they unwisely decide not to decide? This reality is what the OP is trying to describe (or rather, successfully describing). Remember, it does not matter how the world should be, it only matters how the world really is. That is the message of the OP.
Now, why am I posting so many times? So that whoever is trying to crush the message of the grandparent runs out of mod points. I think they are doing it because of an agenda. If you have a mod point, go way up to the OP and mod him up, because he is dead on.
Here is where you are obviously less intellectually adept than the OP. See, it doesn't matter what policies the OP has, just what the purchased politicians have. It is these politicians that do not believe in an implicit no. This is what the OP speaks to. HE IS NOT DESCRIBING HIMSELF HERE! Is it possible for you to understand the difference or are you really that dense?
Dear moderators: Please mod parent out of flamebait. Here is why: parent is absolutely correct. As we will witness (and have witnessed), every "committee" who is asked to ratify or reject OOXML is going to be unable to reach a consensus because the standard is flawed. Then, some purchased politician is going to declare the standard accepted despite the committee's protestations and hesitations (the latter will be fatal). Then we are going to see a bunch of hullabaloo on slashdot where people wonder aloud how such a travesty could come to pass. This pattern should be apparent to all but the most dense among us.
But here, for the first time as far as I can tell, parent is explaining why we see this pattern in the simplest possible terms. But slashdotters moderate him (or her) to flamebait (and troll, if you read below). Why is this happening? In other words (1) why are these committees of supposedly bright people getting railroaded repeatedly by purchased politicians, and (2) why is someone pointing out the pattern getting quashed on slashdot? What is happening here?
Now, before you use a mod point either way on this post or parent, first attempt to answer those questions. If you can, respond with an intelligent answer. If you can't, move on or mod parent up.
Brilliant. Why you were labeled troll is beyond me--perhaps someone at microsoft had mod points and didn't want other potential committee members to see your analysis.
Your assessment of distribution of child pornography is dead-on. But it seems that you are confused about "terrorism". Acts of terrorism are bad and should be punished. But "terrorism" these days is a word that is brandied about carelessly for power and profit. For instance, if I am of Muslim decent, encrypt all of my emails, and affiliate exclusively with other Muslims from certain countries, then I would be labeled a "potential terrorist", though I may not have any desire or plans to commit or endorse any act of terrorism. Now, this label, "potential terrorist" will stick and people will become confused over time as to the exact meaning of the word potential, and then I will become simply a "terrorist". Now, with a terrorist, potential or not, you have an enemy. And enemies are what a government needs to expand. They need wars on drugs, wars on piracy, wars on terrorism. Governments, like any other entity, have a desire to grow and attain more power. So they prolifically label people, words, and thoughts, and even property, with the word "terrorism" because so many people, like you, confuse the word with the act. This is why "terrroism = your government wants you to be afraid". They need your fear because fear is the greatest motivator.
"At this point, it doesn't really matter too much what the prior is, just that we have one. We'll see that after a few rounds of calculations, this prior washes out pretty quickly."
I see now--you never even bothered to understand the math. Go back and see exactly *which* prior I was talking about. Or is such quoting out of context a mainstay technique of your crude rhetoric?
Nice job using my post to get yourself a +5 insightful, though.
Malice could be the only explanation given those assumptions (which we now know were wrong) because the cutting happened in places greatly separated in geography. Outside of coincidence (which had a finite likelihood given my assumptions), the only explanation for such hugely separated events would be human, and hence malice. Also, "conspiracy" is two or more people working together secretly and illegally, so its a loaded word. Cutting cables would be illegal and I reckon it would take more than one person to cut them, so any malicious cable cutting would be a conspiracy by necessity. But, on /. you can get labeled a conspiracy theorist just by defining the word, so you have to be careful how you use it.
You mean "disingenuously imply a false appeal to authority". One who speaks or write things "implies" things, those reading or listening "infer". To use the term correctly, for example, one would correctly say that you consistently infer a lot of meaning where there is none. Along with writing more carefully, I strongly suggest you go back and read my posts carefully. If you compare yours to mine, you will see that I give all of my assumptions and quantify them and repeatedly ask what assumptions you would make. You never gave any. Worse yet, you use this thread to propagate some dichotomy wherein the impounding of a couple of boats "prove" you "right" and me "wrong". Now, just because I know it gets under your unusually thin skin, I still assert my math was correct. The assumptions may have been wrong, but I defended those with the best knowledge I could find. You, on the other hand, lazily made assertions and did not offer any alternative assumptions in any quantitative way. You never provided a number. Go look and see. That's lazy, and, in my opinion, disingenuous.
If you had even one single brain cell up in your thick Neanderthal skull, you would have realized that I didn't say anything about "who". So basically, you are an idiot.