Where did I deny reality? I said specifically that non-Western science does not diminish Western science. The person to whom I was originally replying was the one denying reality, saying essentially that non-Western scientists didn't exist. I never said that non-Western science was greater/better, I never, in fact, said it was even equivalent, though that could be taken as implied. (That equivalence would be sourced, as you allude, in periods of history mostly prior to the 16th century.) I'm really not interested in a disagreement about scale, as that is inherently subjective and largely dependent on where you want to draw lines. I made my point, that non-Western scientists do exist, and that was the only point I wished to make.
Bronze was also virtually unknown in the Western Hemisphere. There is some evidence that the Moche culture and their successors the Inca (through the Wari/Huari and Killke) did some small-scale smelting, and even if this is true it puts them more than 4000 years behind the Eastern Hemisphere metallurgically speaking. (And in the 1000 years between the possible discovery and use of bronze and Columbian contact the Moche/Inca did very little with it.) As such there were almost no durable metallic objects in the whole hemisphere which had corresponding impact on their development, constructive and logistical capacity, and infrastructure generally.
Oh, I'm sorry, I figured that a use limited completely to toys was functionally irrelevant. What you're saying is equivalent to showing that pre-Columbian civilizations had toy birds with wings and therefore they invented the airplane. Bollocks. In fact it only indicts them further that nobody in those cultures was smart enough to figure out 'well, what if we made these bigger?'
And you don't suppose there is a reason why a site created by Americans for which most contributors are Americans written in a language most native speakers of which are American might have a bias toward American figures?
In contrast, the Chinese language version of Wikipedia lists 120 Chinese physicists alone. I didn't add up all the categories but a rough look through I could honestly estimate about 500 for China too in the Chinese language wikipedia.
I would suggest you educate yourself more about the contributions made to science outside of the West. It does not diminish the value of the Western contributions to know they that didn't happen in a vacuum.
I've come across opinions like yours before (which you don't explicitly state but allude to the idea that if guy X didn't discover a thing then guy Y would, therefore only the thing discovered is important), and I have one important example that effectively refutes it: the wheel. Even after more than five thousand years of use in the Eastern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere had no wheels until the Europeans arrived. We don't know who came up with the wheel, but if an entire hemisphere could miss that opportunity for more than 5000 years, for all we know, without that unknown person in the fertile crescent the other hemisphere could have suffered the same fate. Then where would we be? The mind reels. Just as great works of art cannot exist without great artists, great ideas are not accessible to humanity without great minds. Both need to be known and remembered.
As far as the story goes, people who whine about cookies are idiots. However, the summary's grammar was atrocious. Trying to parse all the bad subject-verb agreement made my head hurt...
"[...] ploy is called [...] and [...] are [...] of [...] technology [...] are [...]."
"is and are"? Really? And technology is plural now? I really hope that the person who wrote this is ESL.
Yeah, 2001 did not involve logistically supported troops in force occupying and governing territory for several years. If that's not an invasion, what is?
While I agree, to an extent, with what your are saying, your historical background leaves something to be desired. 1812 was not the last invasion of the territory of the US. While an argument could be made that America invaded Mexico first (if you believe the Mexican territorial claim was valid over the American territorial claim), President Polk's message to Congress on May 11, 1846 stated that “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil.”
Further, during the Second World War the Japanese invaded several US holdings and territories, including but not limited to Alaska, Guam, the Philippines, etc. And they clearly would have invaded Hawaii if they could. So, in reality the US has not been invaded since 1941-44.
Well you see as a marine biologist I thought it would be really ground breaking if I looked for a new species of fish living in the Gobi Desert. After a lifetime of work I'm sorry to say that there just appear to be no fish living in the Gobi Desert. I know I could have taken the easy route and actually tried to study fish in bodies of water, but that would have been so cliche.
Scentcone already commented on rights vs. privileges, so I'll comment on the following:
The forefathers didn't have access to semi-automatic handguns which could fit in their pockets.
The forefathers had access to fucking artillery pieces. Cannons were available to private ownership and use throughout the first century of US history, and were especially common on the frontier where they were an important force multiplier for small settlements vs. natives. For that matter, you could own and operate your own private warship during the same period if you could afford it, with as many cannons as you could fit on it.
There are a lot of self-defense cases that argue against the supposed monopoly on legitimate force. What government possesses is not different from its constituents, which is the ability to use force in response to harms. The difference is that the government can respond with a degree of force to harms which are not physical (such as financial, etc.), but this is because that right has been delegated by a consensus of the governed. No group can ethically exercise a power which any individual therein does not originally possess.
Calling it a rip-off is not really fair because it isn't a deliberate over-pricing, it's due to lower manufacturing yields and higher manufacturing costs.
If you truly believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Continuing to use the example of the AMD 1090T, it is AMD's flagship desktop processor, only on the market since May, and even when it was in shortest supply the price was still only $400 maximum [citation]. The Intel 980X by comparison has been out longer, everybody knows that Intel has a larger manufacturing base, and still their price hasn't dropped by as much in terms of percentage[citation].
Intel is leveraging its brand identity to keep their prices inflated, even though their ability to supply is known to be superior. The people who pay that cost are a) not spending their own money, making decisions for a business or government or b) insecure and trying to keep up with the Joneses or rarely c) have a special application which absolutely requires a minor increase in speed at three times the cost.
I'm not saying it's linear, I'm saying that at a certain point the increase isn't worth it for most people. That there is a curve is real an undeniable, that things at the top are worth their cost to any but a few special cases (and the insecure) is unlikely.
You think that light = autism? Really? From the age of five to fifteen I slept with the lights on. I am not autistic, and I am considered to have one of the best memories by people who know me. I also am using a computer at damn near all times that I am not sleeping.
I also appreciate the 'get off my lawn' aspect of 'I only had a monochrome handheld!' Sure this saved you from untold mental disorders... or not.
Actually we're using the same resolutions mainly because displays are the limiter. All the super awesome cards at the top of the market right now can render resolutions twice or more what most people can display because their monitor sucks.
And by your logic, it would make sense to buy something for three times the price just to get a quarter more points on your PCMark score, just because that's the fastest possible. That's the way insecure men have mid-life crises. "I don't care what it costs, so long as people think I have the biggest penis!" Yeah, that's Intel consumers alright.
I would be interested in a real world contrast of supposedly 'simple' vs. 'complicated' CPUs. Current multicores are designed to scale. That's why failed multicores are able to downscale. A Core Solo is not a 'complicated' single CPU, nor is a Core Duo a pair of 'simple' CPUs. They are virtually identical, just scaled and linked. The same is true of every other recent architecture.
Your hypotheticals about cost are only so much blather until the market ultimately decides what works at which prices.
Wow, so you have discovered that the human eye is somehow infinite in its capacity to perceive?! You'll win the Nobel prize for this!
The reason that audio leveled off is that the human ear and capacity to hear is finite. Once graphics are fully photorealistic, there really is no higher level.
If your logic reflected to any degree the way things actually are, multicore CPUs wouldn't exist. As with CPU production today, dies with bad CPUs or GPUs will just go in the next bin down. Bad CPU? Put it in a discrete graphics card. Bad GPU? Make it a CPU only. Just as bad hexas become quads and bad quads become triples etc. Intel and AMD both do this all the time.
Benchmarks certainly testify that the AMD 3.2 ghz hexacore is not three times slower than the Intel. At three times the price even twice as fast is a rip off, and Intel isn't even that far ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I deny reality? I said specifically that non-Western science does not diminish Western science. The person to whom I was originally replying was the one denying reality, saying essentially that non-Western scientists didn't exist. I never said that non-Western science was greater/better, I never, in fact, said it was even equivalent, though that could be taken as implied. (That equivalence would be sourced, as you allude, in periods of history mostly prior to the 16th century.) I'm really not interested in a disagreement about scale, as that is inherently subjective and largely dependent on where you want to draw lines. I made my point, that non-Western scientists do exist, and that was the only point I wished to make.
Bronze was also virtually unknown in the Western Hemisphere. There is some evidence that the Moche culture and their successors the Inca (through the Wari/Huari and Killke) did some small-scale smelting, and even if this is true it puts them more than 4000 years behind the Eastern Hemisphere metallurgically speaking. (And in the 1000 years between the possible discovery and use of bronze and Columbian contact the Moche/Inca did very little with it.) As such there were almost no durable metallic objects in the whole hemisphere which had corresponding impact on their development, constructive and logistical capacity, and infrastructure generally.
Oh, I'm sorry, I figured that a use limited completely to toys was functionally irrelevant. What you're saying is equivalent to showing that pre-Columbian civilizations had toy birds with wings and therefore they invented the airplane. Bollocks. In fact it only indicts them further that nobody in those cultures was smart enough to figure out 'well, what if we made these bigger?'
And you don't suppose there is a reason why a site created by Americans for which most contributors are Americans written in a language most native speakers of which are American might have a bias toward American figures?
In contrast, the Chinese language version of Wikipedia lists 120 Chinese physicists alone. I didn't add up all the categories but a rough look through I could honestly estimate about 500 for China too in the Chinese language wikipedia.
I would suggest you educate yourself more about the contributions made to science outside of the West. It does not diminish the value of the Western contributions to know they that didn't happen in a vacuum.
I would like to note that Wikipedia lists more women scientists than it does all scientists from China.
Just because you haven't heard of somebody doesn't mean that person doesn't exist.
To be fair, it's not an exclusive dichotomy, quite the opposite, it is both societal pressure and genetic disposition.
I've come across opinions like yours before (which you don't explicitly state but allude to the idea that if guy X didn't discover a thing then guy Y would, therefore only the thing discovered is important), and I have one important example that effectively refutes it: the wheel. Even after more than five thousand years of use in the Eastern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere had no wheels until the Europeans arrived. We don't know who came up with the wheel, but if an entire hemisphere could miss that opportunity for more than 5000 years, for all we know, without that unknown person in the fertile crescent the other hemisphere could have suffered the same fate. Then where would we be? The mind reels. Just as great works of art cannot exist without great artists, great ideas are not accessible to humanity without great minds. Both need to be known and remembered.
58 + 72 = 130. And that's just Japan and China (and then only those notable enough to be in an English language index).
As far as the story goes, people who whine about cookies are idiots. However, the summary's grammar was atrocious. Trying to parse all the bad subject-verb agreement made my head hurt...
"[...] ploy is called [...] and [...] are [...] of [...] technology [...] are [...]."
"is and are"? Really? And technology is plural now? I really hope that the person who wrote this is ESL.
Yeah, 2001 did not involve logistically supported troops in force occupying and governing territory for several years . If that's not an invasion, what is?
While I agree, to an extent, with what your are saying, your historical background leaves something to be desired. 1812 was not the last invasion of the territory of the US. While an argument could be made that America invaded Mexico first (if you believe the Mexican territorial claim was valid over the American territorial claim), President Polk's message to Congress on May 11, 1846 stated that “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil.”
Further, during the Second World War the Japanese invaded several US holdings and territories, including but not limited to Alaska, Guam, the Philippines, etc. And they clearly would have invaded Hawaii if they could. So, in reality the US has not been invaded since 1941-44.
Well you see as a marine biologist I thought it would be really ground breaking if I looked for a new species of fish living in the Gobi Desert. After a lifetime of work I'm sorry to say that there just appear to be no fish living in the Gobi Desert. I know I could have taken the easy route and actually tried to study fish in bodies of water, but that would have been so cliche.
The forefathers didn't have access to semi-automatic handguns which could fit in their pockets.
The forefathers had access to fucking artillery pieces. Cannons were available to private ownership and use throughout the first century of US history, and were especially common on the frontier where they were an important force multiplier for small settlements vs. natives. For that matter, you could own and operate your own private warship during the same period if you could afford it, with as many cannons as you could fit on it.
There are a lot of self-defense cases that argue against the supposed monopoly on legitimate force. What government possesses is not different from its constituents, which is the ability to use force in response to harms. The difference is that the government can respond with a degree of force to harms which are not physical (such as financial, etc.), but this is because that right has been delegated by a consensus of the governed. No group can ethically exercise a power which any individual therein does not originally possess.
I think somebody should put GPS transmitters on the Ninth Circuit justices' cars immediately, and register wheremyjudgesat.com.
Calling it a rip-off is not really fair because it isn't a deliberate over-pricing, it's due to lower manufacturing yields and higher manufacturing costs.
If you truly believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Continuing to use the example of the AMD 1090T, it is AMD's flagship desktop processor, only on the market since May, and even when it was in shortest supply the price was still only $400 maximum [citation]. The Intel 980X by comparison has been out longer, everybody knows that Intel has a larger manufacturing base, and still their price hasn't dropped by as much in terms of percentage[citation].
Intel is leveraging its brand identity to keep their prices inflated, even though their ability to supply is known to be superior. The people who pay that cost are a) not spending their own money, making decisions for a business or government or b) insecure and trying to keep up with the Joneses or rarely c) have a special application which absolutely requires a minor increase in speed at three times the cost.
John has a long moustache.
Quite. And as a corollary.
I'm not saying it's linear, I'm saying that at a certain point the increase isn't worth it for most people. That there is a curve is real an undeniable, that things at the top are worth their cost to any but a few special cases (and the insecure) is unlikely.
You think that light = autism? Really? From the age of five to fifteen I slept with the lights on. I am not autistic, and I am considered to have one of the best memories by people who know me. I also am using a computer at damn near all times that I am not sleeping.
I also appreciate the 'get off my lawn' aspect of 'I only had a monochrome handheld!' Sure this saved you from untold mental disorders... or not.
Actually we're using the same resolutions mainly because displays are the limiter. All the super awesome cards at the top of the market right now can render resolutions twice or more what most people can display because their monitor sucks.
And by your logic, it would make sense to buy something for three times the price just to get a quarter more points on your PCMark score, just because that's the fastest possible. That's the way insecure men have mid-life crises. "I don't care what it costs, so long as people think I have the biggest penis!" Yeah, that's Intel consumers alright.
I would be interested in a real world contrast of supposedly 'simple' vs. 'complicated' CPUs. Current multicores are designed to scale. That's why failed multicores are able to downscale. A Core Solo is not a 'complicated' single CPU, nor is a Core Duo a pair of 'simple' CPUs. They are virtually identical, just scaled and linked. The same is true of every other recent architecture.
Your hypotheticals about cost are only so much blather until the market ultimately decides what works at which prices.
Wow, so you have discovered that the human eye is somehow infinite in its capacity to perceive?! You'll win the Nobel prize for this!
The reason that audio leveled off is that the human ear and capacity to hear is finite. Once graphics are fully photorealistic, there really is no higher level.
If your logic reflected to any degree the way things actually are, multicore CPUs wouldn't exist. As with CPU production today, dies with bad CPUs or GPUs will just go in the next bin down. Bad CPU? Put it in a discrete graphics card. Bad GPU? Make it a CPU only. Just as bad hexas become quads and bad quads become triples etc. Intel and AMD both do this all the time.
Benchmarks certainly testify that the AMD 3.2 ghz hexacore is not three times slower than the Intel. At three times the price even twice as fast is a rip off, and Intel isn't even that far ahead.