I've read just about every theory out there, I don't believe them, and I don't disbelieve them.
In which discipline? In any of the sciences? Your writing style suggests the personality of one who wouldn't be able to manage beyond a freshman introduction to science, and that only with great difficulty.
If you will qualify your statement with some indication of which theories you have read, such as particular fields of study in which you are very well-versed, and then proceed to support your funny assertions logically and factually, you might be taken seriously, but to claim to have "read just about every theory out there" is simply ridiculous. No, you have not. There simply is not enough time in the day for you to do so, in all the fields of inquiry that exist, unless you began your reading before the theories were published, in which case, give me back my time machine, criminal.
One commonality that seems to pervade just about everything is the "spectrum" high frequency to low frequency, the small or refined can be found in the large and coarse etc. So what we see is not all of what there is, such as the limited slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, or the matter that is made from ever smaller and more refined particles.
Oscillations, hierarchies and periodicity are useful concepts to apply to many systems, but we all know that already, and you haven't really made any point of any kind.
To be truly Scientific, you must question everything, including the TOOLS that you use, and the effect that these may have.
Many non-scientists share your misunderstanding of the nature of science in that way, and suppose that omniscience is the goal of science. If it was, you would be right; we would need to apply the scientific method to absolutely everything. However, that is not the case, and in fact the demonstrated effectiveness of the scientific depends on asking focused, specific questions which can be answered sensibly, by quantification of careful observations. So, what you described as the approach that is required "To be truly Scientific" is directly contrary to what the scientific method really is. There might be a style of thought -- although it looks more to me like the absence of thought or refusal to think honestly and in precise terms -- which you're trying to describe and you seemingly have some disagreement with science, but what you are trying to suggest about questioning the very TOOLS that I use -- with the implication that you mean the tools I use in the practice of science -- truly is not "scientific." That word has an exact meaning, which is absolutely incompatible with yours:
...what thought is conscious of, IS NOT NEARLY ALL OF WHAT IS...Knowing that absolutely every effect is preceded by a cause, and that cause can also be thought or consciousness.
In one breath, you suggest consciousness is insufficient because it is not omniscient, and in the next you imply thought can perform telekinesis. What a load of garbage.
Let me call you out for a second: do you have proof of this?
I really doubt that he was entirely serious, but I've wondered more than once whether Microsoft does that, when I read in MS vs. Linux flame wars that Linux is "too difficult," there are "no drivers," it's "not mature enough," and other comments that just look like somebody hired a hobo to login at a public library and talk some trash, guided only by a handful of vague outlines of counterattacks to a list of most-common criticisms. In fact, Microsoft doesn't officially pay people to troll, or even to defend the brand in Internet forums AFAIK, but those whose commissions depend on selling an operating system that really does not operate very well have a built-in incentive to troll; the money Microsoft pays them to sell Microsoft. So, what he told you in jest was true, from a certain point of view.
The polar opposite of the "ether" theory is that apparent "vacuums" are in fact vacuums. The polar opposite of "relativity" theory is the velocity and mass and time are independent of one another, ie that one can vary without affecting the values of the other. Of these two polarities, the conceptual pair of polar opposites relativity/non-relativity are more accurate, concise, & complete descriptions and predictors of observations than models based on skewing the vacuum/matter polarity with the gibberish "ether." According to Occam's Razor, Relativity is better, absolutely, than the ether theory, for the purpose for which each was invented: science. Also by Occam's Razor, Wiltshire's discovery is better than dark matter & dark energy, because it explains the same observation with less complexity -- assuming that the summary in the linked article is accurate & complete, Which I know better than to take on faith!
How sure are you about all that? From the article:
The bill applies to anyone who used a computer to help commit the original sex crime. It also may be applied to paroled sex offenders under lifetime supervision
Using a computer to download sex acts of a 17-year-old who looks 18 is a crime by the content provider, who is required to *verify* the ages of participants, not of the content consumer. Other sex crimes involving the use of a computer tend to be of the egregious type. And anybody sentenced to "lifetime supervision" has been convicted of a non-trivial offense. Your conclusion that the law is not "actually applied only to the rapists and child molesters" is not supported by the text of the NYT article. Do you have some secret, inside source you want to publish on the Internet, are you lying, or are you just commenting without reading the article?
I never really understood the whole browser inclusion with the antitrust aspect.
I did not understand how browser inclusion is a problem the first time I heard about it, but since then I've read a lot about security vulnerabilities in IE, and the fact that I cannot *remove* that particular honeypot from my system -- unless I remove that entire operating system -- irks me. In a nutshell, my dealings with Microsoft have not provided the advertised convenience, and have provided unadvertised insecurity, and I do not believe "fraud" is too strong a word. That wasn't exactly the case brought by the plaintiffs, but dumping "bads" on consumer while advertising and selling them as "goods" is essentially what antitrust laws exist to punish.
Linux has been ready for years; a plethora of SPAM beyond the FTC's ability to even reduce, may finally convince the desktop user to get ready for Linux.
The point that collecting solar power requires an electrical system in addition to solar panels is a fair one, but that is basically a one-time cost at any facility, and that cost decreases in proportion to the total cost as the number of solar panels increases. Unless the system is in space. In that case, for each increase in the number of panels, there is still a huge increase in cost due to the cost of fuel to get them out of Earth's gravity.
The Internet has just emphasized the incompetence of a profession that, by and large, cannot tell the difference between opinions and facts, and treats the existence of editorials as news. Such recursion in genetics is termed incest. I submit that recursion is equally unhealthy in the flow of pure information as in genetic information. http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2326769820071223
Pundits, they are not news. And neither do I consider them entertaining, they're just dreck.
That's why I cut out the middlemen, who presume to distribute the commodity advertised as "news" in the style correctly termed commentary or editorial. Some facts cannot be made entertaining, and seeing them presented in formats designed for entertainment purposes is distracting from their real significance.
http://news.myway.com/index.html
But if that's not substantive enough for you, there's the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour.
Is there? Hasn't that been re-named the Lehrer News Hour yet?
LOL, I think that because the wavelengths would be the same as natural sunlight, concentrating the rays to such densities would heat the atmosphere between the parabolic collector/emitter and the terrestrial solar panels too much to be called anything other than a Death Ray.
Governments mandate the location of stamps on envelopes, too. Neither is a free market issue, they're the simple, direct result of the need for uniformity to achieve bureaucratic efficiency. Barging into your house to affix your stamps would be intrusive. Rules that allow fast, systematic processing of large-scale processes are smart. Alternatively, we could have even higher taxes.
Who are you, and why are you posting on-topic questions? Don't you know where you are?
That is an excellent point. Although there is more memory than the market can use right now, in the easily-foreseeable future, the modules to which today's memory chips are attached will have too little total capacity.
Safety goggles fit over most specs just fine, except maybe for the enormous black plastic ones, which should be certified safety goggles anyway, or else there is no excuse whatsoever for them.
Beauty: Do you believe the beauty of the French language is diminished by the Academie Francaise? If so, how do you explain its perception as the most beautiful and romantic of all the Romance languages?
the only way to legitimately test this is to construct a real-world test and repeat it fairly often, then tally up how each OS performs. Create a monthly or bimonthly hacking "tourney" with a money purse to properly motivate the contestants. Get "normal" IT staff (i.e. not experts hand-picked by MS or the OSS community) to "secure" the competing operating systems, then let the hackers loose.
And yet the dictionary adds words every single god damn edition.
That could be put to a halt with the addition of one last word to the "English" language: "Slanglish," defined as a separate language composed of all slang vocabulary identified as commonly interspersed among proper English. Considering the limited vocabulary of most speakers of it, any argument for a need to add even more words to the English language has given its counterargument a 99% Head Start.
My body has flown to 4 continents so far, so it is "international," and it says that instead of a rating scale, what you should want is publication of the source code so you can correct it yourself or hire the most affordable geek in your neighborhood to do so.
Patent prohibitions of viewing proprietary source code may be acceptable, under standard as-advertised operating conditions, but when source code exposes users to having their computers taken over by computer criminals, I submit that protections of the specific faulty code responsible for identified vulnerabilities be invalidated immediately upon discoveries of such vulnerabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
If you will qualify your statement with some indication of which theories you have read, such as particular fields of study in which you are very well-versed, and then proceed to support your funny assertions logically and factually, you might be taken seriously, but to claim to have "read just about every theory out there" is simply ridiculous. No, you have not. There simply is not enough time in the day for you to do so, in all the fields of inquiry that exist, unless you began your reading before the theories were published, in which case, give me back my time machine, criminal.
Oscillations, hierarchies and periodicity are useful concepts to apply to many systems, but we all know that already, and you haven't really made any point of any kind. Many non-scientists share your misunderstanding of the nature of science in that way, and suppose that omniscience is the goal of science. If it was, you would be right; we would need to apply the scientific method to absolutely everything. However, that is not the case, and in fact the demonstrated effectiveness of the scientific depends on asking focused, specific questions which can be answered sensibly, by quantification of careful observations. So, what you described as the approach that is required "To be truly Scientific" is directly contrary to what the scientific method really is. There might be a style of thought -- although it looks more to me like the absence of thought or refusal to think honestly and in precise terms -- which you're trying to describe and you seemingly have some disagreement with science, but what you are trying to suggest about questioning the very TOOLS that I use -- with the implication that you mean the tools I use in the practice of science -- truly is not "scientific." That word has an exact meaning, which is absolutely incompatible with yours: In one breath, you suggest consciousness is insufficient because it is not omniscient, and in the next you imply thought can perform telekinesis. What a load of garbage.
I really doubt that he was entirely serious, but I've wondered more than once whether Microsoft does that, when I read in MS vs. Linux flame wars that Linux is "too difficult," there are "no drivers," it's "not mature enough," and other comments that just look like somebody hired a hobo to login at a public library and talk some trash, guided only by a handful of vague outlines of counterattacks to a list of most-common criticisms. In fact, Microsoft doesn't officially pay people to troll, or even to defend the brand in Internet forums AFAIK, but those whose commissions depend on selling an operating system that really does not operate very well have a built-in incentive to troll; the money Microsoft pays them to sell Microsoft. So, what he told you in jest was true, from a certain point of view.
The polar opposite of the "ether" theory is that apparent "vacuums" are in fact vacuums. The polar opposite of "relativity" theory is the velocity and mass and time are independent of one another, ie that one can vary without affecting the values of the other. Of these two polarities, the conceptual pair of polar opposites relativity/non-relativity are more accurate, concise, & complete descriptions and predictors of observations than models based on skewing the vacuum/matter polarity with the gibberish "ether." According to Occam's Razor, Relativity is better, absolutely, than the ether theory, for the purpose for which each was invented: science. Also by Occam's Razor, Wiltshire's discovery is better than dark matter & dark energy, because it explains the same observation with less complexity -- assuming that the summary in the linked article is accurate & complete, Which I know better than to take on faith!
Using a computer to download sex acts of a 17-year-old who looks 18 is a crime by the content provider, who is required to *verify* the ages of participants, not of the content consumer. Other sex crimes involving the use of a computer tend to be of the egregious type. And anybody sentenced to "lifetime supervision" has been convicted of a non-trivial offense. Your conclusion that the law is not "actually applied only to the rapists and child molesters" is not supported by the text of the NYT article. Do you have some secret, inside source you want to publish on the Internet, are you lying, or are you just commenting without reading the article?
I did not understand how browser inclusion is a problem the first time I heard about it, but since then I've read a lot about security vulnerabilities in IE, and the fact that I cannot *remove* that particular honeypot from my system -- unless I remove that entire operating system -- irks me. In a nutshell, my dealings with Microsoft have not provided the advertised convenience, and have provided unadvertised insecurity, and I do not believe "fraud" is too strong a word. That wasn't exactly the case brought by the plaintiffs, but dumping "bads" on consumer while advertising and selling them as "goods" is essentially what antitrust laws exist to punish.
Linux has been ready for years; a plethora of SPAM beyond the FTC's ability to even reduce, may finally convince the desktop user to get ready for Linux.
True in many cases, no doubt.
Still, putting procmail's sorting ability into more of the apps favored by casual end-users might be the next easy Internet fortune.
The point that collecting solar power requires an electrical system in addition to solar panels is a fair one, but that is basically a one-time cost at any facility, and that cost decreases in proportion to the total cost as the number of solar panels increases. Unless the system is in space. In that case, for each increase in the number of panels, there is still a huge increase in cost due to the cost of fuel to get them out of Earth's gravity.
The Internet has just emphasized the incompetence of a profession that, by and large, cannot tell the difference between opinions and facts, and treats the existence of editorials as news. Such recursion in genetics is termed incest. I submit that recursion is equally unhealthy in the flow of pure information as in genetic information.
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2326769820071223
Ctrl Pee.
It would be nice if they would complement each other. I would worry (even more) about "journalists'" honesty if they began to compliment each other.
http://news.myway.com/index.htmlIs there? Hasn't that been re-named the Lehrer News Hour yet?
LOL, I think that because the wavelengths would be the same as natural sunlight, concentrating the rays to such densities would heat the atmosphere between the parabolic collector/emitter and the terrestrial solar panels too much to be called anything other than a Death Ray.
3. All of that is factored into $1/Watt (terrestrial) solar panel, and $8/Watt orbital solar power panel + beam calculated costs
4. No other plausible use comes to mind than a Death Ray, in the fashion of the worst Hollywood fiction
Let the unions build solar panels.
Please fasten your seat belts and put your tray tables in the locked, upright position as we fly over Palau, through their Megawatt beam.
Governments mandate the location of stamps on envelopes, too. Neither is a free market issue, they're the simple, direct result of the need for uniformity to achieve bureaucratic efficiency. Barging into your house to affix your stamps would be intrusive. Rules that allow fast, systematic processing of large-scale processes are smart. Alternatively, we could have even higher taxes.
Chuck Norris allows parts of the Internet to deal with other topics, as long as they don't cross him.
Who are you, and why are you posting on-topic questions? Don't you know where you are?
That is an excellent point. Although there is more memory than the market can use right now, in the easily-foreseeable future, the modules to which today's memory chips are attached will have too little total capacity.
Safety goggles fit over most specs just fine, except maybe for the enormous black plastic ones, which should be certified safety goggles anyway, or else there is no excuse whatsoever for them.
Beauty: Do you believe the beauty of the French language is diminished by the Academie Francaise? If so, how do you explain its perception as the most beautiful and romantic of all the Romance languages?
My body has flown to 4 continents so far, so it is "international," and it says that instead of a rating scale, what you should want is publication of the source code so you can correct it yourself or hire the most affordable geek in your neighborhood to do so.
Patent prohibitions of viewing proprietary source code may be acceptable, under standard as-advertised operating conditions, but when source code exposes users to having their computers taken over by computer criminals, I submit that protections of the specific faulty code responsible for identified vulnerabilities be invalidated immediately upon discoveries of such vulnerabilities.