and please please don't interpret hypothesis or wild assed guess as theory
Sounds like you're on the wrong track. The quality of the theory or guess is not a measure of falsification.
Sounds like I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about the typical creationist or other denier tactic of saying something like the theory of Evolution is "just a theory", using the word incorrectly as meaning a hypothesis or - wild ass guess.
What are their hypotheses anyway? And why aren't those hypotheses testable? My understanding instead is that string theory has the problem that whatever crude predictions it can make are not testable using current or near future technology. In other words, it makes falsifiable predictions right now, but they can't be falsified right now.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
The problem with string theory is that it has several unobservable aspects, like the 10 space-time dimensions, and some unobservable spatial dimensions as well.
To solve a few problems with the current model, it introduces a metric shitload more problems.
Which is all to say it is as provable or disprovable as me saying that the universe is the result of cosmic space boogers that make every aspect of the universe what is is for no other reason than that's what they want it to be. In other words, some mathamaticians say it's strings connecting everything, but my booger theory says its snot.
In fact, is more like a religion than anything else. Have a problem? Assign it to God working in mysterious ways - problem solved!
Have a string theory problem? Assign it to another dimension, which maght just be God, working in mysterious ways. Probnlem solved!
Which of course, iut is possible that all of this is God making things as she wants them to be, and no thought needed.
But it isn't testable, and by the rules of science, isn't science.
Which is to say - do you want your children's science class to start with: - warning, silly slippery slope humor
"Okay children, Open your science textbook to page one, and read with me:"
"Genesis 1. 1 - In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
At which point, the controversies will be on whether the real truth is the King James version, or perhaps Youngs literal version, or whether one has to learn ancient Hebrew in order to properly understand science.
Because as far as science is concerned, String theory, along with the religion's various creation stories, is pretty much the same.
I am inclined to agree with everything you said and point out that I, too, am not a physicist. I don't even play one on television.
And as full disclosure, although I worked with many scientists, and most considered me a valuable addition to the team - and many considered me as a sort of a citizen scientist.
My education is.....
Art major with minor in graphic arts.
With a previous Associates in electronics technology.
I had an excellent conversation with a Slashdotter about this, just a few days ago, and I've concluded that I hate the name as much as I hate The God Particle.
Ugh! Yeah, I have no idea what they were thinking with that God particle name.
I can think of no other reason why people are so unwilling to understand. It's really quite simple. It is simple enough for *me* to understand it. Something is causing an effect.
My guess is its a desire on the part of many people to be completely certain of everything. Which might be why many become religious. Oddly enough when they just fall back on the "Stay Calm, and God did it", they gain that surety without actually doing anything. A mental trick.
Where this become apparent is in the approach to the mysteries.
The scientist sees something mysterious going on, something we don't know, and becomes excited. If you want to watch a bunch of happy folk, a roomful of scientists with a big problem to work on.
The "not the scientist", sees something mysterious going on, and they get worried, and often distressed. The surety they crave is missing. So they retreat to wherever they find that surety, and since they can't imagine anything else, they decide that the lack of finality equals failure overall.
It's a pity, because the stuff we don't know yet is seriously exciting.
While the philosophers have a point, it is highly unlikely any breakthroughs in fundamental science will be made by someone educated purely in academic philosophy.
Let me ask a question - maybe this can help. Could a philosopher come up with the scientific method?
All philosophies are not the same, and philosophers did come up with the scientific method.
Thankfully the mathematicians and statisticians stepped in and made the philosophy robust. Sure, maybe you're a Bayesian and believe you can use Solomonoff Induction to judge purely theoretical hypotheses; good for you,but that's still strictly in the land of math and stats.
Oy - that's not the point.
The scientific method is exactly a philosophy. You gotta start somewhere. Intelligent design is a philosophy, so is creationism.
The philosophy of the scientific method demands the possibility of falsification, that experiments can be performed in order to prove or disprove a theory - and please please don't interpret hypothesis or wild assed guess as theory. The philosopies of creationism annd ID do not.
I do know the stringy guys have been bitching because their hypotheses are not testable, but if the debate to allow non-testable ideas into the philosophy of the scientific method, it will be a problem. That means that "God did it," is equally as valid as any proveable aspect of the universe we live in. We cannot prove God did or didn't, so in a falsifiable is optional philosophy, all bets are both on and off. Gravity might not exist - it might be the gentle hand of God on everyone's shoulders steadying us as we go through life. Prove that what I just wrote is wrong.
Though I'll finally be able to force schools to teach the controversey between the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Quicky, the Flying Skink lizard.
It's not just the wacky-libertarianism and complete lack of empathy (and worship of Objectivism) that gets me here on Slashdot, it's the old-fart-ism. You'd think that a place that's supposed to be full of self-professed "nerds" ("News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters") / technologists would be full of people who like technology, but no, it's really full of people who hate change and want to stick with old shit, whether it's some shitty old 70s car that they refuse to give up and claim is far better than any modern car, or the insane belief that they're a race-car-skill-level driver and can outperform ABS systems; I'm sure I could find a bunch more examples if I looked. I'm pretty sure I've seen posts bitching about surface-mount electronics at some point. And I'm someone who sticks with tried-and-true a lot, but the people here take it to a ridiculous extreme. It's not just here; I've seen it with a lot of other engineers too, it's a weird trait for people who are supposed to be creating new technologies.
Posts that should be a plus 5, but betchya they won't be modded up.
And I couldn't agree with you more, so I'll go down your list.
Old cars. Those wonderful old cars have some cool, but that's about it. My first real car was a 1965 Buick Skylark. It was pretty nice, but at 100,000 miles, it was done. TIres were doing well if you could get 15 K out of them. As I heard 100 K, it was a litany of replacing water pumps shock absorbers twice radiator, rebuilt carbs. And rust. Well, my last 2 vehicles I put well over 200 K on each of them, and I had a freaky good set of tires on one that ended up dry rotting at 80 thousand miles, but the tread was still good.
Anti lock brakes. I'd love to set up some tests on some of the roads I go on in the winter. Get one of these experts stopping on glare ice faster than my ABS system. I've tried the brake pump and on glare ice, it takes longer, and there's more chance of flying off the road.
Oh, while we're at it, My Jeep's traction control is astoundingly good. I've stopped it on a ~30 degree incline on roads covered with thick glare ice, and it somply walks up the hill, which I wouldn't even be able to walk up.
Surface mount electronics. Yes, I've seen the bitching. There's one problem - they must never have tried it. I've been hand building and teaching others how to work with SMT devices. I even work with some stuff so small you need a Binoscope to work with it. Its actually fun, and I've taught maybe a dozen or more. And some were pretty old. Certainly if someone had Parkinsonism it could be problem, but the activity actually calms me down, just like target shooting does.
Getting old and cranky is not inevitable, nor is thinking everything in the rear view mirror is better.
I recently had a radio text conversation with a fellow who was in his mid 90's who thought some of the new digital modes for amateur radio were interesting, so he went out and bought himself a new laptop, interface, and attached iit to his radio, and there he was typing with me across the country with no infrastructure, just radio waves. But I fear many slashdotters are far beyond his age already.
I've seen the results of ole fart-ism, and the younger you get it, the worse it gets as you age. I hope I never do. Then again my wife says I'm way too immature to ever turn into an old asshat.
Now, similar outsiders come and request additional permission to do something similar - maybe not at all different from what has gone on for decades... you can tell them yes or no, what's your answer?
Oh - it is very much up to me. I can have an agreement with my heirs that as part of their inheritance, they aren't allowed to renew the lease. Keep the money in a trust fund that won't be distributed until the lease is permanently broken.
But you see, here's the point. As the lessor, that is my power. Ever wonder about exactly why There is all the kerfuffle? A simple "We will not renew the lease, good day sirs" is perfect, and perfectly acceptable. It would also be simple and final and ther ewould be no need for discussion. However, the real world doesn't always work like that. Perhaps the oppressed want to keep what they are getting from the present lease, and just want the bad Americans to go away.
Perhaps even, thi sis not a unoiversal sentiment among the oppressed who benefit form the lease. There may be inter-oppressed controversy. I suspect that not every one of the presumptive natives believes that their Gods are on the top of th mountain. Some might even be interested in Astronomy. There.
Because something else is always something else, and basically, they don't want us there at all, do not want Hawaii to be a state. This lease thing is merely a vehicle for them to mess with us. For your reading enjoyment:
http://nativevillage.org/Messa...
Getting any clearer idea? To me it's simple, because it would appear there is a marked sensitivity to what most scientists would consider the equivalent of burning bushes and golden calves and other middle easter biblical superstitions, yet observe them out of respect and tolerance. Some people just don't want us there at all, and don't want the US to have any psrt of what they consider theirs, and want to be a sovereign nation. But it would be naive to believe that is a universal sentiment. So should those who don't want us there at all have their way?
but I know personally two guys who backed over their children - killing them.
I wonder if, before they backed over their own kids, if you were ask them if backup cameras were a good idea, they would have scoffed at the notion like a bunch of moronic "technologists" here do. Honestly, I feel like this place is full of the nursing-home crowd sometimes.
Its a good point that a lot of the slashdotters seem a little lacking in empathy. Some sort of weird inability to think of other people aside from themselves. And yup - until it happens to them.
I remember one of our proud Slashdot libertarians who was aghast that backup cameras were being made standard equipment, because "the evulz guvmint is just making another intrusion into my freedoms!"
I don't even like safety culture, but a backup camera is such a cheap and simple, yet lifesaving addition to a car that opposing them is like being opposed to oxygen.
As for those two guys, and running over their kids, it was eating them alive.
but they should acknowledge that they are taking something of value from other people when they do that.
Is a lease "taking? Perhaps you have some evidence of this lease being signed at gunpoint?
This is bizarre, with so many slashdotters having completely incorrect ideas about eminent domain, stealing land and other malfeasances that simply are not true.
It's like a liberal version of "truthiness" where your narrative is complately wrong, but it sounds so good to your preconceptions that you can't let go.
I don't disagree with you about the light pollution. My point was that if eminent domain is going to be used to take this land from the tribes in Hawaii, it could also be used to take away the land surrounding existing observatories or other suitable sites that is causing light pollution.
The point being that there truly are other suitable sites on the planet for a ground telescope to be built.
Chile has a site in the Atacama desert. It has much in common with Mauna Kea. High and dry. Also covers the southern hemisphere, so that's a plus.
Imminent domain is supposed to only be used when it is going to benefit the local community. While there is much benefit to the world wide scientific community, that does qualify for the State of Hawaii to seize land that was deeded to the local natives, any more than Oklahoma can seize land from the reservations because it was now found to be valuable because of oil.
Any time we start saying that rights don't apply to one group of people, we are effectively saying that we don't have them either.
Except of course, you are incorrect about eminent domain, This is a lease. A contract entered into by two parties, with no land grab whatsoever.
Finally, and most importantly, since most astronomy is no longer done in the visible light spectrum, what are the cons to not building another ground based visible light telescope? Or what advantage over the existing telescopes, earth bound or not will this provide? If the goal is to further science, would these limited resources be better used for a different project?
Much of present day work is performed in the infrared, and at frequencies that are absorbed by the atmosphere.
That's thing one. Another very important part of all this is accessability. While it isn't particularly easy to get to either Mauna Kea or the observatories in the Atacama plateau, it is a whole lot easier and more flexible than orbital telescopes. Breakdowns, updates and repairs are rather easier than sending up space shuttles and EVA's. Some astronomy can be done using large airplanes, but the apertures limit size and therefore sensitivity. Which is also a matter of concern in space based observatories. Size limits on earth based observatories are much less restricted.
So Mauna Kea is a exceedingly rare and valuable location, the land is leased from the people who claim ownership for religious reasons, and It's always fun to watch people fall into easily predictable camps - which is why I like to tease people with the "white oppressor" nonsense.
Rear view cameras I'm iffy on, I have one and I don't use it too much.
Most or all only work in reverse, when you're going slowly enough that the risk of a fatal accident is already near zero. The "near" part is mostly about backing over kids or others who don't see your or can't get out of the way in time, where the cameras can help.
Yes, it's mainly the kid behind the car thing. We always joke about th e"think of thje children thing, but I know personally two guys who backed over their children - killing them. That's a hellava thing to carry with you the rest of your life. Two other uses that aren't so mainstream. I use mine full time in my RV, which is a big help. I have a fresnel lens in the faraway rear window, and sideview mirrors, but the more to osee the merrier.
The third help is when I'm 4 wheeling, at night, and backing up. Helps to protect the jeep back end a bit. And if it's all black behind me, I know I better stop, cuz I'm at the edge of a cliff.
Things like blind spot monitoring and automatic braking are crutches for bad drivers, as the OP said.
I dunno; I think I can do better than automatic braking on a good day, probably even a typical day, but when it comes to safety I should consider the kind of driver I am at my worst; when I'm angry, tired, and distracted for example.
Me too. Problem is that that guy who won't pass me but has to ride so far up my ass that he should at least buy me dinner and a movie also thinks he has the refelxes better than anyone else.
And since they won't stop, I for one will welcome our new anti-tailgating overlords that force these asshats to follow at a safer distance.
"There are a lot of genes and proteins that don't have much use, perhaps they did at one time. And viruses often need those genes or proteins to reproduce"
Exactly! IOW they just patch an ancient vulnerability and the malware has no chance anymore.
Developing the mountaintop has impacts all the way back down into Hilo - increased traffic / noise / dust on the road - people who work up there living down in town, etc. Traditional economic productivity isn't the only measure of land's value, and development of a place like that has huge impacts beyond the building site.
That is so weak it's amazing. Anyone can use anyone else travelling through their area to decide anything, using a insular outlook like that.
This is ONE instance, that I might actually support the use of it....
You notice how eminent domain is never used against the one-percenters? Eminent domain, today, is only used against those who don't have the resources to fight against it.
I understand that the US has several good locations in the southwest, except for light pollution.
That's like saying that the core of the Chernobyl reactor is a great place to live, except for the radiation. Light pollution is a sure killer for observatories.
Altitude is very important as well - The Mauna Kea site is above most of the Infrared absorbing atmospheric water at almost 14000 feet above sea level. Here's some of th ehighest peaks in North America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Any you'd suggest for an observatory. Maybe Denali?
But in the end, this really isn't about the observatory. This is about some folks who simply don't want the "white oppressor" in Hawaii - period, and this is just one way to mess with their hate target.
Maybe eminent domain can be used for the government to take over those light polluting properties to use the existing telescopes?
As long as you want to move an absolutely huge number of people. It would be on a bigger scale than giving back Manhattan Island. Even then, you still wouldn't have any mainland sites that are anywhere near as useful as Mauna Kea.
And you tip your hand. If you are in favor of moving millions and millions of people for a subpar observatory, you have to use the same reasoning for using a place that no one is living at.
This is why humanity needs to get over its reverence for religion, and why the work of people like Hitchens/Dawkins etc. toward that goal is so important. Some group of people who irrationally believe a volcano is a god should not have anything to do with out collectively gaining knowledge by building a telescope on it.
My religion says that teh so called native hawaiian's do not own that land - I do, Respect my religion.
I find this and all the hoopla about GMO's pretty entertaining. On one hand we are worried sick that GMO that produces extra things will kill us and in this case we are worried that something being missing will do the same.
Fear of the unknown, and refusal to learn. All of these differences in gene expression can and do happen through normal reproduction. Lack of this protein is probably what infers a "natural" immunity in the first place. I'm not certain what the denialists think confers immunity.
tl;dr version. If a person doesn't like this sort of thing, only eat pigs that died of PRRS. Oh - and figure out some way to prevent genetic variability.
the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.
No, it is not the "job" of that protein to make sure the pig can host the specific virus. The virus needs that protein to reproduce. Your statement is like saying that the job of a window is so that thieves can break into houses through them.
The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.
This!
Every animal, every plant carries DNA, everything carries proteins. And they can modify via mutation in very similar ways - human intervention or not. There are a lot of genes and proteins that don't have much use, perhaps they did at one time. And viruses often need those genes or proteins to reproduce.
Plus not all animals under completely normal (read non human intervention) have identical gene expression. This is a fundamental process that leads to evolution.
This difference in expression often leads to immunity from particular diseases.
While some times we might breed animals or plants that have this resistance, manipulating a gene to produce an identical effect, isn't going to make porky toxic.
Given that any plant, any animal bred by any means other than cloning might have different genetics, Those who have such an aversion to purity will only be consistent if they settle on a baseline animal or plant, then refuse to eat anything other than cloned versions.
Otherwise the normally reproduced species will have just as much likelihood of being toxic a this terror pig.
Slashdot Mirror
and please please don't interpret hypothesis or wild assed guess as theory
Sounds like you're on the wrong track. The quality of the theory or guess is not a measure of falsification.
Sounds like I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about the typical creationist or other denier tactic of saying something like the theory of Evolution is "just a theory", using the word incorrectly as meaning a hypothesis or - wild ass guess.
What are their hypotheses anyway? And why aren't those hypotheses testable? My understanding instead is that string theory has the problem that whatever crude predictions it can make are not testable using current or near future technology. In other words, it makes falsifiable predictions right now, but they can't be falsified right now.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... The problem with string theory is that it has several unobservable aspects, like the 10 space-time dimensions, and some unobservable spatial dimensions as well.
To solve a few problems with the current model, it introduces a metric shitload more problems. Which is all to say it is as provable or disprovable as me saying that the universe is the result of cosmic space boogers that make every aspect of the universe what is is for no other reason than that's what they want it to be. In other words, some mathamaticians say it's strings connecting everything, but my booger theory says its snot.
In fact, is more like a religion than anything else. Have a problem? Assign it to God working in mysterious ways - problem solved!
Have a string theory problem? Assign it to another dimension, which maght just be God, working in mysterious ways. Probnlem solved!
Which of course, iut is possible that all of this is God making things as she wants them to be, and no thought needed.
But it isn't testable, and by the rules of science, isn't science.
Which is to say - do you want your children's science class to start with: - warning, silly slippery slope humor
"Okay children, Open your science textbook to page one, and read with me:"
"Genesis 1. 1 - In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
At which point, the controversies will be on whether the real truth is the King James version, or perhaps Youngs literal version, or whether one has to learn ancient Hebrew in order to properly understand science.
Because as far as science is concerned, String theory, along with the religion's various creation stories, is pretty much the same.
I am inclined to agree with everything you said and point out that I, too, am not a physicist. I don't even play one on television.
And as full disclosure, although I worked with many scientists, and most considered me a valuable addition to the team - and many considered me as a sort of a citizen scientist.
My education is.....
Art major with minor in graphic arts.
With a previous Associates in electronics technology.
So there is hope for everyone!
I would have called it "weird fucking shit", but then I'm not a physicist. In fact that could be why I'm not a physicist.
That is what it is often called
In the bar, after the conference.
I had an excellent conversation with a Slashdotter about this, just a few days ago, and I've concluded that I hate the name as much as I hate The God Particle.
Ugh! Yeah, I have no idea what they were thinking with that God particle name.
I can think of no other reason why people are so unwilling to understand. It's really quite simple. It is simple enough for *me* to understand it. Something is causing an effect.
My guess is its a desire on the part of many people to be completely certain of everything. Which might be why many become religious. Oddly enough when they just fall back on the "Stay Calm, and God did it", they gain that surety without actually doing anything. A mental trick.
Where this become apparent is in the approach to the mysteries.
The scientist sees something mysterious going on, something we don't know, and becomes excited. If you want to watch a bunch of happy folk, a roomful of scientists with a big problem to work on.
The "not the scientist", sees something mysterious going on, and they get worried, and often distressed. The surety they crave is missing. So they retreat to wherever they find that surety, and since they can't imagine anything else, they decide that the lack of finality equals failure overall.
It's a pity, because the stuff we don't know yet is seriously exciting.
More like, "we don't know", but we have to make some shit up or everything else we believe will fall apart.
It's a place holder since we probably won't ever know everything, we sometimse have to use a place holder instead of giving up.
So that really hot Vril chick with the long hair has come back.
I would also add "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are the aether of the 21st century.
Dark matter is a highly scientific and technical term that means "We don't know"
Seriously.
While the philosophers have a point, it is highly unlikely any breakthroughs in fundamental science will be made by someone educated purely in academic philosophy.
Let me ask a question - maybe this can help. Could a philosopher come up with the scientific method?
All philosophies are not the same, and philosophers did come up with the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thankfully the mathematicians and statisticians stepped in and made the philosophy robust. Sure, maybe you're a Bayesian and believe you can use Solomonoff Induction to judge purely theoretical hypotheses; good for you,but that's still strictly in the land of math and stats.
Oy - that's not the point.
The scientific method is exactly a philosophy. You gotta start somewhere. Intelligent design is a philosophy, so is creationism.
The philosophy of the scientific method demands the possibility of falsification, that experiments can be performed in order to prove or disprove a theory - and please please don't interpret hypothesis or wild assed guess as theory. The philosopies of creationism annd ID do not.
I do know the stringy guys have been bitching because their hypotheses are not testable, but if the debate to allow non-testable ideas into the philosophy of the scientific method, it will be a problem. That means that "God did it," is equally as valid as any proveable aspect of the universe we live in. We cannot prove God did or didn't, so in a falsifiable is optional philosophy, all bets are both on and off. Gravity might not exist - it might be the gentle hand of God on everyone's shoulders steadying us as we go through life. Prove that what I just wrote is wrong.
Though I'll finally be able to force schools to teach the controversey between the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Quicky, the Flying Skink lizard.
It's not just the wacky-libertarianism and complete lack of empathy (and worship of Objectivism) that gets me here on Slashdot, it's the old-fart-ism. You'd think that a place that's supposed to be full of self-professed "nerds" ("News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters") / technologists would be full of people who like technology, but no, it's really full of people who hate change and want to stick with old shit, whether it's some shitty old 70s car that they refuse to give up and claim is far better than any modern car, or the insane belief that they're a race-car-skill-level driver and can outperform ABS systems; I'm sure I could find a bunch more examples if I looked. I'm pretty sure I've seen posts bitching about surface-mount electronics at some point. And I'm someone who sticks with tried-and-true a lot, but the people here take it to a ridiculous extreme. It's not just here; I've seen it with a lot of other engineers too, it's a weird trait for people who are supposed to be creating new technologies.
Posts that should be a plus 5, but betchya they won't be modded up.
And I couldn't agree with you more, so I'll go down your list.
Old cars. Those wonderful old cars have some cool, but that's about it. My first real car was a 1965 Buick Skylark. It was pretty nice, but at 100,000 miles, it was done. TIres were doing well if you could get 15 K out of them. As I heard 100 K, it was a litany of replacing water pumps shock absorbers twice radiator, rebuilt carbs. And rust. Well, my last 2 vehicles I put well over 200 K on each of them, and I had a freaky good set of tires on one that ended up dry rotting at 80 thousand miles, but the tread was still good.
Anti lock brakes. I'd love to set up some tests on some of the roads I go on in the winter. Get one of these experts stopping on glare ice faster than my ABS system. I've tried the brake pump and on glare ice, it takes longer, and there's more chance of flying off the road.
Oh, while we're at it, My Jeep's traction control is astoundingly good. I've stopped it on a ~30 degree incline on roads covered with thick glare ice, and it somply walks up the hill, which I wouldn't even be able to walk up.
Surface mount electronics. Yes, I've seen the bitching. There's one problem - they must never have tried it. I've been hand building and teaching others how to work with SMT devices. I even work with some stuff so small you need a Binoscope to work with it. Its actually fun, and I've taught maybe a dozen or more. And some were pretty old. Certainly if someone had Parkinsonism it could be problem, but the activity actually calms me down, just like target shooting does.
Getting old and cranky is not inevitable, nor is thinking everything in the rear view mirror is better.
I recently had a radio text conversation with a fellow who was in his mid 90's who thought some of the new digital modes for amateur radio were interesting, so he went out and bought himself a new laptop, interface, and attached iit to his radio, and there he was typing with me across the country with no infrastructure, just radio waves. But I fear many slashdotters are far beyond his age already.
I've seen the results of ole fart-ism, and the younger you get it, the worse it gets as you age. I hope I never do. Then again my wife says I'm way too immature to ever turn into an old asshat.
Now, similar outsiders come and request additional permission to do something similar - maybe not at all different from what has gone on for decades... you can tell them yes or no, what's your answer?
Oh - it is very much up to me. I can have an agreement with my heirs that as part of their inheritance, they aren't allowed to renew the lease. Keep the money in a trust fund that won't be distributed until the lease is permanently broken.
But you see, here's the point. As the lessor, that is my power. Ever wonder about exactly why There is all the kerfuffle? A simple "We will not renew the lease, good day sirs" is perfect, and perfectly acceptable. It would also be simple and final and ther ewould be no need for discussion. However, the real world doesn't always work like that. Perhaps the oppressed want to keep what they are getting from the present lease, and just want the bad Americans to go away.
Perhaps even, thi sis not a unoiversal sentiment among the oppressed who benefit form the lease. There may be inter-oppressed controversy. I suspect that not every one of the presumptive natives believes that their Gods are on the top of th mountain. Some might even be interested in Astronomy. There. Because something else is always something else, and basically, they don't want us there at all, do not want Hawaii to be a state. This lease thing is merely a vehicle for them to mess with us. For your reading enjoyment: http://nativevillage.org/Messa...
http://hawaii-nation.org/
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/s...
Here's the management plan. Reading through it, it's almost all about protecting th cultural aspects of Mauna Kea.
http://www.malamamaunakea.org/...
Getting any clearer idea? To me it's simple, because it would appear there is a marked sensitivity to what most scientists would consider the equivalent of burning bushes and golden calves and other middle easter biblical superstitions, yet observe them out of respect and tolerance. Some people just don't want us there at all, and don't want the US to have any psrt of what they consider theirs, and want to be a sovereign nation. But it would be naive to believe that is a universal sentiment. So should those who don't want us there at all have their way?
but I know personally two guys who backed over their children - killing them.
I wonder if, before they backed over their own kids, if you were ask them if backup cameras were a good idea, they would have scoffed at the notion like a bunch of moronic "technologists" here do. Honestly, I feel like this place is full of the nursing-home crowd sometimes.
Its a good point that a lot of the slashdotters seem a little lacking in empathy. Some sort of weird inability to think of other people aside from themselves. And yup - until it happens to them.
I remember one of our proud Slashdot libertarians who was aghast that backup cameras were being made standard equipment, because "the evulz guvmint is just making another intrusion into my freedoms!"
I don't even like safety culture, but a backup camera is such a cheap and simple, yet lifesaving addition to a car that opposing them is like being opposed to oxygen.
As for those two guys, and running over their kids, it was eating them alive.
but they should acknowledge that they are taking something of value from other people when they do that.
Is a lease "taking? Perhaps you have some evidence of this lease being signed at gunpoint? This is bizarre, with so many slashdotters having completely incorrect ideas about eminent domain, stealing land and other malfeasances that simply are not true.
It's like a liberal version of "truthiness" where your narrative is complately wrong, but it sounds so good to your preconceptions that you can't let go.
I don't disagree with you about the light pollution. My point was that if eminent domain is going to be used to take this land from the tribes in Hawaii, it could also be used to take away the land surrounding existing observatories or other suitable sites that is causing light pollution.
To be precise, the land has not been acquired by eminent domain - it is leased http://www.bizjournals.com/pac...
The point being that there truly are other suitable sites on the planet for a ground telescope to be built.
Chile has a site in the Atacama desert. It has much in common with Mauna Kea. High and dry. Also covers the southern hemisphere, so that's a plus.
Imminent domain is supposed to only be used when it is going to benefit the local community. While there is much benefit to the world wide scientific community, that does qualify for the State of Hawaii to seize land that was deeded to the local natives, any more than Oklahoma can seize land from the reservations because it was now found to be valuable because of oil.
Any time we start saying that rights don't apply to one group of people, we are effectively saying that we don't have them either.
Except of course, you are incorrect about eminent domain, This is a lease. A contract entered into by two parties, with no land grab whatsoever.
Finally, and most importantly, since most astronomy is no longer done in the visible light spectrum, what are the cons to not building another ground based visible light telescope? Or what advantage over the existing telescopes, earth bound or not will this provide? If the goal is to further science, would these limited resources be better used for a different project?
Much of present day work is performed in the infrared, and at frequencies that are absorbed by the atmosphere.
That's thing one. Another very important part of all this is accessability. While it isn't particularly easy to get to either Mauna Kea or the observatories in the Atacama plateau, it is a whole lot easier and more flexible than orbital telescopes. Breakdowns, updates and repairs are rather easier than sending up space shuttles and EVA's. Some astronomy can be done using large airplanes, but the apertures limit size and therefore sensitivity. Which is also a matter of concern in space based observatories. Size limits on earth based observatories are much less restricted.
So Mauna Kea is a exceedingly rare and valuable location, the land is leased from the people who claim ownership for religious reasons, and It's always fun to watch people fall into easily predictable camps - which is why I like to tease people with the "white oppressor" nonsense.
Perhaps we could up our game in driver's ed? While we're at it begin doing something about dumbass pedestrians?
Drivers Ed is going the way of the dinosaurs. Costs too much. No one wants to pay for it.
At what point do you declare diminishing returns?
When someone that thinks that driving 3 feet behind me at 70 miles per hour is acceptable cannot do that any more.
Rear view cameras I'm iffy on, I have one and I don't use it too much.
Most or all only work in reverse, when you're going slowly enough that the risk of a fatal accident is already near zero. The "near" part is mostly about backing over kids or others who don't see your or can't get out of the way in time, where the cameras can help.
Yes, it's mainly the kid behind the car thing. We always joke about th e"think of thje children thing, but I know personally two guys who backed over their children - killing them. That's a hellava thing to carry with you the rest of your life. Two other uses that aren't so mainstream. I use mine full time in my RV, which is a big help. I have a fresnel lens in the faraway rear window, and sideview mirrors, but the more to osee the merrier.
The third help is when I'm 4 wheeling, at night, and backing up. Helps to protect the jeep back end a bit. And if it's all black behind me, I know I better stop, cuz I'm at the edge of a cliff.
Things like blind spot monitoring and automatic braking are crutches for bad drivers, as the OP said.
I dunno; I think I can do better than automatic braking on a good day, probably even a typical day, but when it comes to safety I should consider the kind of driver I am at my worst; when I'm angry, tired, and distracted for example.
Me too. Problem is that that guy who won't pass me but has to ride so far up my ass that he should at least buy me dinner and a movie also thinks he has the refelxes better than anyone else.
And since they won't stop, I for one will welcome our new anti-tailgating overlords that force these asshats to follow at a safer distance.
"There are a lot of genes and proteins that don't have much use, perhaps they did at one time. And viruses often need those genes or proteins to reproduce"
Exactly! IOW they just patch an ancient vulnerability and the malware has no chance anymore.
Damn - that's a really good analogy!
Developing the mountaintop has impacts all the way back down into Hilo - increased traffic / noise / dust on the road - people who work up there living down in town, etc. Traditional economic productivity isn't the only measure of land's value, and development of a place like that has huge impacts beyond the building site.
That is so weak it's amazing. Anyone can use anyone else travelling through their area to decide anything, using a insular outlook like that.
The govt uses eminent domain all the time....
This is ONE instance, that I might actually support the use of it....
You notice how eminent domain is never used against the one-percenters? Eminent domain, today, is only used against those who don't have the resources to fight against it.
I understand that the US has several good locations in the southwest, except for light pollution.
That's like saying that the core of the Chernobyl reactor is a great place to live, except for the radiation. Light pollution is a sure killer for observatories.
Here's the Palomar observatory situation http://www.astro.caltech.edu/p...
Altitude is very important as well - The Mauna Kea site is above most of the Infrared absorbing atmospheric water at almost 14000 feet above sea level. Here's some of th ehighest peaks in North America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Any you'd suggest for an observatory. Maybe Denali?
But in the end, this really isn't about the observatory. This is about some folks who simply don't want the "white oppressor" in Hawaii - period, and this is just one way to mess with their hate target.
Maybe eminent domain can be used for the government to take over those light polluting properties to use the existing telescopes?
As long as you want to move an absolutely huge number of people. It would be on a bigger scale than giving back Manhattan Island. Even then, you still wouldn't have any mainland sites that are anywhere near as useful as Mauna Kea.
And you tip your hand. If you are in favor of moving millions and millions of people for a subpar observatory, you have to use the same reasoning for using a place that no one is living at.
This is why humanity needs to get over its reverence for religion, and why the work of people like Hitchens/Dawkins etc. toward that goal is so important. Some group of people who irrationally believe a volcano is a god should not have anything to do with out collectively gaining knowledge by building a telescope on it.
My religion says that teh so called native hawaiian's do not own that land - I do, Respect my religion.
Even worse, consider the situation of the Hawaiian natives.
Oh so they are the original inhabitants of th island?
If this was like the evil astronokmers taking valuable seaside land, and building condos on it, there might be a smidgem of a case.
Or if they kicked these natives off their land perhaps reparations would be in order.
But can you point out exactly where they did this? Here's a piccy to help. Where were the "natives" evicted from here?
http://www.richardwainscoat.co...
The Mauna Kea observatory is a world heritage site AFAIAC.
I find this and all the hoopla about GMO's pretty entertaining. On one hand we are worried sick that GMO that produces extra things will kill us and in this case we are worried that something being missing will do the same.
Fear of the unknown, and refusal to learn. All of these differences in gene expression can and do happen through normal reproduction. Lack of this protein is probably what infers a "natural" immunity in the first place. I'm not certain what the denialists think confers immunity.
tl;dr version. If a person doesn't like this sort of thing, only eat pigs that died of PRRS. Oh - and figure out some way to prevent genetic variability.
the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.
No, it is not the "job" of that protein to make sure the pig can host the specific virus. The virus needs that protein to reproduce. Your statement is like saying that the job of a window is so that thieves can break into houses through them.
The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.
This!
Every animal, every plant carries DNA, everything carries proteins. And they can modify via mutation in very similar ways - human intervention or not. There are a lot of genes and proteins that don't have much use, perhaps they did at one time. And viruses often need those genes or proteins to reproduce.
Plus not all animals under completely normal (read non human intervention) have identical gene expression. This is a fundamental process that leads to evolution.
This difference in expression often leads to immunity from particular diseases.
While some times we might breed animals or plants that have this resistance, manipulating a gene to produce an identical effect, isn't going to make porky toxic.
Given that any plant, any animal bred by any means other than cloning might have different genetics, Those who have such an aversion to purity will only be consistent if they settle on a baseline animal or plant, then refuse to eat anything other than cloned versions.
Otherwise the normally reproduced species will have just as much likelihood of being toxic a this terror pig.
just another form of denialism.