Other examples are the people who payed FICA all their life and are now collecting. The people who payed UI and are collecting. These people are counted in that 70% figure, even though they are just withdrawing from a (mandatory to participate) insurance program that they were formerly funding.
Lots of claims in this thread as to "plenty of statistics" about how many freeloaders there are. No actual statistics provided. Tell you something?
Politicians and their buds just want to steal the cash retirees put into the system.
God forbid you google "5G wireless" and not know the difference between the cellular definition of 5G and WiFi 5GHz, often referred to as 5G.
Saw that namespace collision coming a mile away. It's going to be one of those things that causes confusion with PHBs for the next decade. They should have added another letter or something e.g. 5GX.
Yeah, on 1200 you'd be bedridden in no time. 1900/male is actually a bit low, too... to retain current body weight at the BMR one would have to rest all day and couldn't do anything. Just to sit in a chair and browse facebook you need quite more than that.
Re:Too Little, Too Late & MtGox
on
The New PHP
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Especially since it's actually one of the only things that makes PHP (barely) readable.
It's almost a guarantee that some things that have been stamped "safe" by scientific studies are in fact not safe for a small subpopulation which expresses an unusual gene or two, or share some other factor in common. Ferreting out correlations like that will take a lot more research than we are doing, and there will always be subpopulations too small for tests to ever be economical. In the meantime if careful explanation by a guy in a convincingly white coat has the opposite effect than desired, just imagine how effective people flaming the anti-vax-fence-sitters on internet forums must be:-)
Been saying it for a while: many, many people have lost any and all trust in establishmentarianism, even when some of them simultaneously cling to strange authoritative belief systems, and as the "Information Age" progresses this is extending to a fundamental mistrust of well presented information. Mainly because liars are some of the best presenters out there.
Every single ethics violation by established corporations, professionals, professional organizations, media, and other would-be pillars of the community has long lasting and far reaching effects, damaging our aggregate level of trust in those who actually deserve to be trusted. The damage is probably partially offset by trusting even fewer of those who don't deserve it, but overall my instinct is it is corrosive since trust plays such an important role in all things economic and communal.
We had two people drop CS at our school because it was hard and get into a nearby school's engineering program.
That school must have had a pretty weak definition of the word "engineering."
Someone might as well say "While engineers can be said to have enough intelligence to make things after they've been taught enough theory, cleary only theoreticians are truly intelligent - otherwise the engineers wouldn't need them..."
Someone might, but while my statement recognizes that there are qualitative vectors to "intelligence" this one seems not to.
This. And the goal of this line of battery research isn't to provide "blasts of current" as we've already got that covered with ultracaps and Li-ion for burst needs. The goal is to provide slightly more current than is required to propel a vehical at highway speeds, and do so for a long time between charges, and to do so for many charges.
Ah, so we're throwing the aircraft through the air with the power of pixie dust and unicorn farts.
Aircraft engines are a red herring here, since the target of these batteries is automotive. But for what it's worth, jet turbines also only convert a portion of the fuel's chemical energy into kinetic energy. Combustion efficiency is 90%+, but cycle efficiency in turbojet and similar is nearer to 30%.
For automotive, in contrast to ICE+drivetrain at about 25%, shows average values of about 36% and this is in part due to the efficiency of electric drive trains and in part due to the efficiency of the fuel cell process, but of course externals in the fuel production.
Batteries win hands down against both of those options for efficiency, with externals excluded, so the same amount of energy in a battery is worth more miles than the equivalent amount of chemically stored energy in gasoline once it is onboard.
You don't need to understand the significance of the data to plot it on a chart with the right axes names.
That must be the misperception that causes everyone to make just about every application that displays a chart pretty much useless by extrapolating or connecting dots or applying smoothing when they shouldn't, failing to use appropriate compression functions on axes scales, and not providing widgets appropriate to the tasks in which the data is needed.
You could just as easily argue that people drop out of real Computer Science to go EE
I went straight through the CSE branch of EE (included CS algorithms, building compilers in ADA, logic programming, circuit analysis in both the time and frequency domains, basic amplifier design, discrete math, calc, linear algebra, signal analysis and digital control of dynamic systems (read: applying laplace transforms in very complex ways)) The people in CS had it much easier than me. I can't really tell if the folks following the purer EE fork had it easier of harder, but while I envy their knowlege of photonics, wave theory, and anaogue information encoding, I don't envy the work they had to put into acquiring it, nor the complexity of their device models and circuit equations.
NOBODY dropped *into* CSE/EE (it was hard enough to get into the engineering school to begin with and CS majors would lose ground every semester on the prereqs.) It was usually the other way around. In fact the way they front-loaded the CS courses so we were roughly apace the CS majors was likely because they expected this to happen.
While theoreticians can be said to possess a certain level of explorative intellegence and a voracious memory not possessed by engineers, engineers possess an intelligence that helps one deal with having neither of the luxuries of glossing over fine details nor a flexible objective.
You just described something existing inside of something except you are somehow equating A,B as A,C while not realizing they are by definition not the same thing.
No, I said nothing of {A,C}, I only made a statement about {{A,B},{A,C}}.
I hope you realize that you just explained something existing outside the universe creating the universe and in one instance, entering it.
I did not do that, no.
There will likely never be universal proof of a creator unless the stories are real and there is a second coming and the earth is destroyed.
I fail to see how the beliefs of a minority have any bearing on the matter. (I'm just guessing from the phrasing those stories you refer to are those of the post-Judaic Abrahamic religions) Whether there is a creating agency, whether that agency is sentient or an automoton, and whether any such agency would present observable phenomena that we would ever interpret as sentient (in either case) are bigger (separate) questions than whether some scribblings on old peices of animal skin have any basis.
Neither do I see any bearing as to whether the destruction of the earth, which is pretty much assured by scientific models, has any relevence.
I guess I don't need to present proof as we are talking about the logic of it and you just presented all the logic needed to determine the creator was outside the creation when creating it.
I didn't ask for proof. Just justification for your somewhat quirky definitions, which don't seem to coincide with those commonly accepted.
Ahh... A complex repeat of the example I initially provided with the object on the paper. A subroutine is by definition limited to the subroutine and the program is outside it. But I see you go on missing this little tidbit of logic.
This is just plain wrong. Obviously so. The Set {A,B} is part of {{A,B},{A,C}} even though its definition is limited to {A,B}. {{A,B},{A,C}} cannot exist without {A.B}.
Actually, no. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly, nothing is created. It is a well known process of metamorphosis.
By that definition, the word "created" defines a verb entirely confined to the meaning of making something appear out of entirely nothing, Since we don't even know if "entirely nothing" is even possible, that would potentially make it completely fictional and thus meaningless verb. I don't think many would agree.
What would the god -hypothetical or not, exist in before it created the universe? What makes that different then the universe it created?
I don't think there are many remaining philosphers who still consider the term "universe" to mean the "unversal set" which is why we have terms such as "multiverse" floating around.
But in order for something to have created our universe, we have to be an object with boundaries that apply to us- not the creator who acted to create
Exactly half of my point. In the (unpopular) scenario where the universe is permeable, the boundaries have meaning only in determining what is part of the universe, and things that aren't part of it do not all necessarily need to be defined by those boundaries. The other half is that, even in the scenario where the universe is a completely closed system, things can exist outside that enclosed system without interacting with it, however, if that completely closed system had an initial state (along some dimension, not necessarily limited to "time") then evidence as to the parameters of that initial state may still be evident from within the universe. Which is why we have so much chatter about such things as the CMBR assymetry and somewhat serious propositions about how to ascertain whether we are living in a simulation.
Do I personally think we'll ever glean a proof or a disproof of any "creator" or creation-like event from available physical evidence? Probably not, and almost definitely not within my lifetime. However, from a logical standpoint, I see no proof that such a proof is impossible, and you've presented zero to back up your somewhat strange definition of words and logical constructs.
Giving examples of things that cannot create other things that are part of themselves does not disprove the ability of something to create something that is part of itself, any more than giving examples of blackbirds precludes the existance of bluebirds. A self-modifying program can create a subroutine. It is still part of the program. A catepillar can create a butterfly and still be the same organism. A hypothatical "god" could create the universe by forming itself or part of itself into the universe, and in so doing could leave evidence of either its prior state or of the anatomy of the whole accessible to the residents of that universe. There is no current proof that there is no possible proof of a "creator" (sentient or not) known to any philosophy or system of logic I have ever seen referenced, and no, the incompleteness theorem does not cut it.
Now, if you want to argue the semantics about exactly what a universe is and what constraints the permeability or nonpermeability of the boundaries of that object put on interaction between a hypothetical "creator" and the contents of the universe, that could be a more meaningful conversation, but there we'd just be establishing the implications of unproven theories should they be proven true, and we are far from proving many of them.
Not all cheese and yogurt contains active culture, as some are heat treated after fermentation. Still the micro-carcasses probably factor into the equation as it is likely that at least some interactions between flora don't require one of the organisms to be living.
Also there are bunches of strains/varieties beyond what commodity yogurt uses. However, most of the "special strain" products on the market have inadequate research to back up claims.
There's enough "there there" to make this an area of active study, but it looks like we've gotten a late start on this research so high-confidence results won't be in for a long while for many claims.
If nothing else, a endemic of believers in a fad food has the benefit of motivating researchers... eventually.
I have a friend who's a vocal atheist, and regularly expresses his disdain for food health fads. He prefers to shop at Trader Joes, which would arguably the next entry on TFA's shitlist after Whole Foods.
the sellers are con artists and shouldn't be allowed to prey on them
There are con-artist products in every grocery store. Singling out Whole Foods for that is really just an excercise in hippie-punching. If we really want to crack down on false advertising claims, then 1) we should first actually verify them false with research rather than kneejerk skepticism and 2) concentrate on claims most detrimental to public health first, and then after that, those most detrimental to the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
It was one obvious example.
Other examples are the people who payed FICA all their life and are now collecting. The people who payed UI and are collecting. These people are counted in that 70% figure, even though they are just withdrawing from a (mandatory to participate) insurance program that they were formerly funding.
Lots of claims in this thread as to "plenty of statistics" about how many freeloaders there are. No actual statistics provided. Tell you something?
Politicians and their buds just want to steal the cash retirees put into the system.
God forbid you Google it
God forbid you google "5G wireless" and not know the difference between the cellular definition of 5G and WiFi 5GHz, often referred to as 5G.
Saw that namespace collision coming a mile away. It's going to be one of those things that causes confusion with PHBs for the next decade. They should have added another letter or something e.g. 5GX.
Nobody needs to write malware when you're accepting any cert from any server. You can do it all server side.
True, leaving the device powered off permanently in its shrinkwrap on a store shelf does make it rather secure.
If you come off a diet then it's not really the diet's fault, is it?
Depends on the physiological affects of the diet on your mental/CNS health, and consequent psychological conditions.
Blame is generally an unproductive endeavor when messing with anything that alters metabolism.
processing often removes roughage which helps the digestive tract.
Or hurts it, if you're one of the one in ten people with irritable bowel syndrome.
Yeah, on 1200 you'd be bedridden in no time. 1900/male is actually a bit low, too... to retain current body weight at the BMR one would have to rest all day and couldn't do anything. Just to sit in a chair and browse facebook you need quite more than that.
Especially since it's actually one of the only things that makes PHP (barely) readable.
It's almost a guarantee that some things that have been stamped "safe" by scientific studies are in fact not safe for a small subpopulation which expresses an unusual gene or two, or share some other factor in common. Ferreting out correlations like that will take a lot more research than we are doing, and there will always be subpopulations too small for tests to ever be economical. In the meantime if careful explanation by a guy in a convincingly white coat has the opposite effect than desired, just imagine how effective people flaming the anti-vax-fence-sitters on internet forums must be :-)
Rote memorization isn't all bad. There are times I'm glad I know what 6 x 7 is without having to sidetrack into a mental heuristic.
Been saying it for a while: many, many people have lost any and all trust in establishmentarianism, even when some of them simultaneously cling to strange authoritative belief systems, and as the "Information Age" progresses this is extending to a fundamental mistrust of well presented information. Mainly because liars are some of the best presenters out there.
Every single ethics violation by established corporations, professionals, professional organizations, media, and other would-be pillars of the community has long lasting and far reaching effects, damaging our aggregate level of trust in those who actually deserve to be trusted. The damage is probably partially offset by trusting even fewer of those who don't deserve it, but overall my instinct is it is corrosive since trust plays such an important role in all things economic and communal.
We had two people drop CS at our school because it was hard and get into a nearby school's engineering program.
That school must have had a pretty weak definition of the word "engineering."
Someone might as well say "While engineers can be said to have enough intelligence to make things after they've been taught enough theory, cleary only theoreticians are truly intelligent - otherwise the engineers wouldn't need them..."
Someone might, but while my statement recognizes that there are qualitative vectors to "intelligence" this one seems not to.
This. And the goal of this line of battery research isn't to provide "blasts of current" as we've already got that covered with ultracaps and Li-ion for burst needs. The goal is to provide slightly more current than is required to propel a vehical at highway speeds, and do so for a long time between charges, and to do so for many charges.
Ah, so we're throwing the aircraft through the air with the power of pixie dust and unicorn farts.
Aircraft engines are a red herring here, since the target of these batteries is automotive. But for what it's worth, jet turbines also only convert a portion of the fuel's chemical energy into kinetic energy. Combustion efficiency is 90%+, but cycle efficiency in turbojet and similar is nearer to 30%.
For automotive, in contrast to ICE+drivetrain at about 25%, shows average values of about 36% and this is in part due to the efficiency of electric drive trains and in part due to the efficiency of the fuel cell process, but of course externals in the fuel production.
Batteries win hands down against both of those options for efficiency, with externals excluded, so the same amount of energy in a battery is worth more miles than the equivalent amount of chemically stored energy in gasoline once it is onboard.
You don't need to understand the significance of the data to plot it on a chart with the right axes names.
That must be the misperception that causes everyone to make just about every application that displays a chart pretty much useless by extrapolating or connecting dots or applying smoothing when they shouldn't, failing to use appropriate compression functions on axes scales, and not providing widgets appropriate to the tasks in which the data is needed.
You could just as easily argue that people drop out of real Computer Science to go EE
I went straight through the CSE branch of EE (included CS algorithms, building compilers in ADA, logic programming, circuit analysis in both the time and frequency domains, basic amplifier design, discrete math, calc, linear algebra, signal analysis and digital control of dynamic systems (read: applying laplace transforms in very complex ways)) The people in CS had it much easier than me. I can't really tell if the folks following the purer EE fork had it easier of harder, but while I envy their knowlege of photonics, wave theory, and anaogue information encoding, I don't envy the work they had to put into acquiring it, nor the complexity of their device models and circuit equations.
NOBODY dropped *into* CSE/EE (it was hard enough to get into the engineering school to begin with and CS majors would lose ground every semester on the prereqs.) It was usually the other way around. In fact the way they front-loaded the CS courses so we were roughly apace the CS majors was likely because they expected this to happen.
While theoreticians can be said to possess a certain level of explorative intellegence and a voracious memory not possessed by engineers, engineers possess an intelligence that helps one deal with having neither of the luxuries of glossing over fine details nor a flexible objective.
You just described something existing inside of something except you are somehow equating A,B as A,C while not realizing they are by definition not the same thing.
No, I said nothing of {A,C}, I only made a statement about {{A,B},{A,C}}.
I hope you realize that you just explained something existing outside the universe creating the universe and in one instance, entering it.
I did not do that, no.
There will likely never be universal proof of a creator unless the stories are real and there is a second coming and the earth is destroyed.
I fail to see how the beliefs of a minority have any bearing on the matter. (I'm just guessing from the phrasing those stories you refer to are those of the post-Judaic Abrahamic religions) Whether there is a creating agency, whether that agency is sentient or an automoton, and whether any such agency would present observable phenomena that we would ever interpret as sentient (in either case) are bigger (separate) questions than whether some scribblings on old peices of animal skin have any basis.
Neither do I see any bearing as to whether the destruction of the earth, which is pretty much assured by scientific models, has any relevence.
I guess I don't need to present proof as we are talking about the logic of it and you just presented all the logic needed to determine the creator was outside the creation when creating it.
I didn't ask for proof. Just justification for your somewhat quirky definitions, which don't seem to coincide with those commonly accepted.
It becomes one with too much exposure to CISCO CLIs.
Ahh... A complex repeat of the example I initially provided with the object on the paper. A subroutine is by definition limited to the subroutine and the program is outside it. But I see you go on missing this little tidbit of logic.
This is just plain wrong. Obviously so. The Set {A,B} is part of {{A,B},{A,C}} even though its definition is limited to {A,B}. {{A,B},{A,C}} cannot exist without {A.B}.
Actually, no. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly, nothing is created. It is a well known process of metamorphosis.
By that definition, the word "created" defines a verb entirely confined to the meaning of making something appear out of entirely nothing, Since we don't even know if "entirely nothing" is even possible, that would potentially make it completely fictional and thus meaningless verb. I don't think many would agree.
What would the god -hypothetical or not, exist in before it created the universe? What makes that different then the universe it created?
I don't think there are many remaining philosphers who still consider the term "universe" to mean the "unversal set" which is why we have terms such as "multiverse" floating around.
But in order for something to have created our universe, we have to be an object with boundaries that apply to us- not the creator who acted to create
Exactly half of my point. In the (unpopular) scenario where the universe is permeable, the boundaries have meaning only in determining what is part of the universe, and things that aren't part of it do not all necessarily need to be defined by those boundaries. The other half is that, even in the scenario where the universe is a completely closed system, things can exist outside that enclosed system without interacting with it, however, if that completely closed system had an initial state (along some dimension, not necessarily limited to "time") then evidence as to the parameters of that initial state may still be evident from within the universe. Which is why we have so much chatter about such things as the CMBR assymetry and somewhat serious propositions about how to ascertain whether we are living in a simulation.
Do I personally think we'll ever glean a proof or a disproof of any "creator" or creation-like event from available physical evidence? Probably not, and almost definitely not within my lifetime. However, from a logical standpoint, I see no proof that such a proof is impossible, and you've presented zero to back up your somewhat strange definition of words and logical constructs.
Giving examples of things that cannot create other things that are part of themselves does not disprove the ability of something to create something that is part of itself, any more than giving examples of blackbirds precludes the existance of bluebirds. A self-modifying program can create a subroutine. It is still part of the program. A catepillar can create a butterfly and still be the same organism. A hypothatical "god" could create the universe by forming itself or part of itself into the universe, and in so doing could leave evidence of either its prior state or of the anatomy of the whole accessible to the residents of that universe. There is no current proof that there is no possible proof of a "creator" (sentient or not) known to any philosophy or system of logic I have ever seen referenced, and no, the incompleteness theorem does not cut it.
Now, if you want to argue the semantics about exactly what a universe is and what constraints the permeability or nonpermeability of the boundaries of that object put on interaction between a hypothetical "creator" and the contents of the universe, that could be a more meaningful conversation, but there we'd just be establishing the implications of unproven theories should they be proven true, and we are far from proving many of them.
If you were to create a universe, you would initially be outside it too.
This is the part I disagree with. There is no logical basis for this statement.
Not all cheese and yogurt contains active culture, as some are heat treated after fermentation. Still the micro-carcasses probably factor into the equation as it is likely that at least some interactions between flora don't require one of the organisms to be living.
Also there are bunches of strains/varieties beyond what commodity yogurt uses. However, most of the "special strain" products on the market have inadequate research to back up claims.
There's enough "there there" to make this an area of active study, but it looks like we've gotten a late start on this research so high-confidence results won't be in for a long while for many claims.
If nothing else, a endemic of believers in a fad food has the benefit of motivating researchers... eventually.
I have a friend who's a vocal atheist, and regularly expresses his disdain for food health fads. He prefers to shop at Trader Joes, which would arguably the next entry on TFA's shitlist after Whole Foods.
the sellers are con artists and shouldn't be allowed to prey on them
There are con-artist products in every grocery store. Singling out Whole Foods for that is really just an excercise in hippie-punching. If we really want to crack down on false advertising claims, then 1) we should first actually verify them false with research rather than kneejerk skepticism and 2) concentrate on claims most detrimental to public health first, and then after that, those most detrimental to the economy.
Bleh. Have. Must disagree. That and who the hell really thinks vinegar on potato chips or popcorn tastes good.
Then again, I can't stand coffee and it seems to be pretty popular.