Yeah. "How do you buy everything all the time?" You don't. I've got 3 of the above items, but only one is newish (Roku is 5 or 6, Kindle is 3, phone is 1.5 and was given to me free by the office). I'll just use it until it actually breaks, or tech has changed so much that it's completely nonfunctional. My 9-year-old PS3 has been getting cranky over the past year, and after considering upgrading to a PS4, I decided I was fine with just getting another PS3 to replace it.
Nice. I can't resist playing with electric/magnetic repulsion when it's in front of me. It's definitely good science, but there's also just something distinctive, weird, and captivating about the push and pull of those invisible forces. The kids aren't quite into it yet, but I'm looking forward to the day the idea clicks for them.
I think I'm the same. I don't really enjoy fiction on the commute, maybe because losing the train of narrative for a few seconds can be more disruptive to the story. I do very well with audio lectures and podcasts, though.
At 30 years, that's a whole generation. I'd say that's more than enough time. Season 1 ought to be free for all to watch and share, any time they like.
It's funny, and I totally believe this happened, but how in the world did your mother confuse a roughly triangular shape of the poop emoji for chocolate cake? I have never seen a (vertically) triangular cake.
My youngest daughter (4) has one of these in pink. She's been calling it "ice cream," pretending to lick it, and sometimes sleeps with it.
Ahem. Take two. What I mean to say is, maybe it's got some metrics about the density of certain words or topics. Spread over a bigger piece, it doesn't trigger the alarms but in the shorter clip it does. Just a wild guess, though. It could also be a bug in the algorithm that just doesn't work on longer pieces or something. Or randomization. Or wild inconsistency.
I saw the trailer for Geostorm the other day and said, "Gee, that looks exactly like Day After Tomorrow." And my friend remarked, "No, it reminds me of 2012." We eventually agreed we were both right.
I go less since we had the kids, but I'll make an exception if it's something I really want to see. There just hasn't been as much I really wanted to see, and most of the 4-6 maybes came in with really bad ratings this year. I still *like* the theater, but I've got to be more tempted than before--used to be, I'd just go out to a megaplex on a whim, not even knowing what was playing, and just assume something good would be available.
As you say it does help that the home theater is well supported these days. At one time, I sort of felt if I didn't catch a movie in the theaters I might never see it again. Now my problem is if the kids like it, it's a struggle to avoid seeing it less than a dozen times off Netflix, half a year later. And of course Redbox really cuts down on the impatience of waiting for public release.
Sure, and the space between atoms is mostly void, so when you eat things you're mostly eating nothing, and you shouldn't ever be able to get full.*
It's all fine and dandy to play with paradoxical thought exercises, but on another practical level it's also obvious when something works pretty darn well, and even if you don't have a philosophical proof, it's still effective.
I would guess that someone has actually set some definitions on science, and I also suspect they're not as circular as your off-the-cuff interpretation. "Thing" is a dangerous word, because it's got way too many definitions in English, so I'd probably drop that on further reflection. I would say if it takes up space or time, or consists of matter or energy, it is in the domain of science. The universe is the sum of space, time, matter, and energy, so it's an excellent candidate of study.
I get that people are subjective. I've even studied enough zen I'll begrudgingly admit a lot of stuff might be illusion (although I'm very wary of how that word can mean a lot of different things, too). Honestly, though, I think the point of science is that if it's done right, then most people are going to come to the same objective conclusion, despite their varying subjective experiences. That's really the whole point of science, and thus far it's worked incredibly well.
Per your final point, I would suggest that the experience of science is *always* that we are moving closer to the very edge of what it's able to tell us. Then we have a breakthrough, and the edge moves, and we have to spend a while approaching that, before we move the edge again. I suspect our experience of science will stay that way for a very long time, even as we continue to progress.
I definitely don't think you're a troll. But I do think you're being overly mystical and handwavy, which is okay if you're talking about the unknowable, but you're extrapolating back from the world of the unknowable and starting to wave your hand at things that are actually, in fact, solid and knowable.
(In other words, just because there are some things we can't know, it's still wrong to conclude we can't know anything. Unless you're a philosopher, in which case you may be able to formulate a believable argument using a oddly limited definition of "knowable," while ignoring other aspects of the world where, in a practical sense, we do effectively know things.)
The thing is, the universe is inherently unscientific. I don't believe that makes it irrelevant. Instead to a certain degree it makes the scientific method irrelevant.
The most powerful forces affecting any human's life are labelled "love", "hate", "ugly", "beautiful", "awesome", etc. None of which are quantifiable.
I think you're muddling things a little. The universe is a thing. Science is the study of that thing.
Human experience mostly occurs at an unscientific level, which is part of what makes science so hard to develop, and for people to understand, but that's unrelated to either of the above. In most ways, the universe is oblivious to our experience, and can be treated scientifically just fine. From the inside, our unscientific experience tints our whole lives, which may (again, only from the inside) seem to shift the universe, but that's mostly just an illusion of perspective.
Yeah, it didn't look like you were going in that direction, and I glossed over the last sentence. I'm still not really sure that the idea of being a pocket in an infinitely old universe really changes things much compared to the idea that the Big Bang created the entirety of the universe. Either option is in the realm of unknown and probably unknowable.
Among other things, if the universe always existed, where is the fresh matter coming from that's fueling all our stars? Everything should have burned out already in an infinitely old universe. You'd have to invent some source of matter generation or non-energy-conservation, and that's far more problematic than the current big bang theory..
I've had a couple tell me my card wasn't signed. (I tend to write "See ID" but it wore off.)
I had one insane individual who insisted they couldn't complete the sale if the card didn't have a signature on it because the card signature had to match the slip signature. She would not accept "See ID" or cross-check my ID. So she made me sign the card while standing in front of her, and then compared the signature I just put on the card with the signature I just put on the slip. What would that prove? I do not know. But I did it, and then smudged it off before putting the card back in my wallet.
I have had many, many, many cashiers flip over the card, stare at the strip (either blank or with "See ID" on it) and then flip it back over and hand it to me. I don't know if it's an old reflex that lost its purpose and became ritual, or if they're just putting on a pose for the camera.
I've had a few ask to see ID. Some seem to do it for all purchases, often asking or apologizing before they've even really looked at the card. A few actually read the card and then ask. I always thank the latter for being diligent.
Right. Why limit yourself to only seeing what you can in person? And that's not just a matter of location, but scale and interactivity, too. Why go to a planetarium, when you can go to the stars? Zoom out and see the whole solar system, zoom in and watch nuclear fusion in the core of the sun.
Of course field trips ought to be a niche use. I'd love it at home, to be able to explore all kinds of things. Other cities and countries, national parks, outer space, the inner workings of machinery, you name it. Sure, being there in person can't be topped, but given the cost and time requirements of travel, I'd settle for a substitute most of the time.
Yep. I moved from the Midwest to Colorado a while back. I've noticed we get more yellow and less of the reds and purples. I generally assumed that had to do with either the type of trees that grow at elevation, or something in the soil, that made the difference. I hadn't considered the daily temperature fluctuation might have been a part of it.
Then again, we have a bigger swing out here (colder at night) because of the thin air, so maybe that really does bring us back to the types of trees that grow here.
What do you mean here? Where I live, every grocery store has pretty much the same product lines.
Where I live, the two City Markets in town, roughly 3 miles apart, only overlap stock by about 75%. One of them carries X, Y, and Z, but doesn't carry A, B, and C, while the other is reversed. We end up alternating visits to two different instances of the same chain just to find all the things we like. The remaining 3 stores (Safeway, Vitamin Cottage, and Natural Grocer's) have wildly divergent products and brands.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. "How do you buy everything all the time?" You don't. I've got 3 of the above items, but only one is newish (Roku is 5 or 6, Kindle is 3, phone is 1.5 and was given to me free by the office). I'll just use it until it actually breaks, or tech has changed so much that it's completely nonfunctional. My 9-year-old PS3 has been getting cranky over the past year, and after considering upgrading to a PS4, I decided I was fine with just getting another PS3 to replace it.
Nice. I can't resist playing with electric/magnetic repulsion when it's in front of me. It's definitely good science, but there's also just something distinctive, weird, and captivating about the push and pull of those invisible forces. The kids aren't quite into it yet, but I'm looking forward to the day the idea clicks for them.
I think I'm the same. I don't really enjoy fiction on the commute, maybe because losing the train of narrative for a few seconds can be more disruptive to the story. I do very well with audio lectures and podcasts, though.
But a lot of us enjoy having x hours a week at work and weekends/evenings off.
Yeah, so we can work on our side gigs, like programming computer games and trying to get books published. Wait, that sounds terrible ...
I thought that the CIA was supposed to be fighting the CIA
Eh?
At 30 years, that's a whole generation. I'd say that's more than enough time. Season 1 ought to be free for all to watch and share, any time they like.
I see this every time.
"I have an analogy for one business model. Thus, no other business model is valid."
I mean, clearly everyone pays one time for everything. Thus, renting a place to live should not be allowed. Why should they pay every month?
Why should anyone pay their cable bill every month? What if they didn't watch as much this month as last month, shouldn't they pay less?
So that autocorrect can change those into something unintelligible instead.
It's funny, and I totally believe this happened, but how in the world did your mother confuse a roughly triangular shape of the poop emoji for chocolate cake? I have never seen a (vertically) triangular cake.
My youngest daughter (4) has one of these in pink. She's been calling it "ice cream," pretending to lick it, and sometimes sleeps with it.
MAYBE IT HAS A YELLING FILTER?
Ahem. Take two. What I mean to say is, maybe it's got some metrics about the density of certain words or topics. Spread over a bigger piece, it doesn't trigger the alarms but in the shorter clip it does. Just a wild guess, though. It could also be a bug in the algorithm that just doesn't work on longer pieces or something. Or randomization. Or wild inconsistency.
I saw the trailer for Geostorm the other day and said, "Gee, that looks exactly like Day After Tomorrow." And my friend remarked, "No, it reminds me of 2012." We eventually agreed we were both right.
I go less since we had the kids, but I'll make an exception if it's something I really want to see. There just hasn't been as much I really wanted to see, and most of the 4-6 maybes came in with really bad ratings this year. I still *like* the theater, but I've got to be more tempted than before--used to be, I'd just go out to a megaplex on a whim, not even knowing what was playing, and just assume something good would be available.
As you say it does help that the home theater is well supported these days. At one time, I sort of felt if I didn't catch a movie in the theaters I might never see it again. Now my problem is if the kids like it, it's a struggle to avoid seeing it less than a dozen times off Netflix, half a year later. And of course Redbox really cuts down on the impatience of waiting for public release.
Cat-alone-ia
Sure, and the space between atoms is mostly void, so when you eat things you're mostly eating nothing, and you shouldn't ever be able to get full.*
It's all fine and dandy to play with paradoxical thought exercises, but on another practical level it's also obvious when something works pretty darn well, and even if you don't have a philosophical proof, it's still effective.
* Insert Chinese food joke.
Curiously enough, I have a degree in physics. But I'm wrong about things often enough I'm not about to make that appeal to authority.
I would guess that someone has actually set some definitions on science, and I also suspect they're not as circular as your off-the-cuff interpretation. "Thing" is a dangerous word, because it's got way too many definitions in English, so I'd probably drop that on further reflection. I would say if it takes up space or time, or consists of matter or energy, it is in the domain of science. The universe is the sum of space, time, matter, and energy, so it's an excellent candidate of study.
I get that people are subjective. I've even studied enough zen I'll begrudgingly admit a lot of stuff might be illusion (although I'm very wary of how that word can mean a lot of different things, too). Honestly, though, I think the point of science is that if it's done right, then most people are going to come to the same objective conclusion, despite their varying subjective experiences. That's really the whole point of science, and thus far it's worked incredibly well.
Per your final point, I would suggest that the experience of science is *always* that we are moving closer to the very edge of what it's able to tell us. Then we have a breakthrough, and the edge moves, and we have to spend a while approaching that, before we move the edge again. I suspect our experience of science will stay that way for a very long time, even as we continue to progress.
I definitely don't think you're a troll. But I do think you're being overly mystical and handwavy, which is okay if you're talking about the unknowable, but you're extrapolating back from the world of the unknowable and starting to wave your hand at things that are actually, in fact, solid and knowable.
(In other words, just because there are some things we can't know, it's still wrong to conclude we can't know anything. Unless you're a philosopher, in which case you may be able to formulate a believable argument using a oddly limited definition of "knowable," while ignoring other aspects of the world where, in a practical sense, we do effectively know things.)
The thing is, the universe is inherently unscientific. I don't believe that makes it irrelevant. Instead to a certain degree it makes the scientific method irrelevant.
The most powerful forces affecting any human's life are labelled "love", "hate", "ugly", "beautiful", "awesome", etc. None of which are quantifiable.
I think you're muddling things a little. The universe is a thing. Science is the study of that thing.
Human experience mostly occurs at an unscientific level, which is part of what makes science so hard to develop, and for people to understand, but that's unrelated to either of the above. In most ways, the universe is oblivious to our experience, and can be treated scientifically just fine. From the inside, our unscientific experience tints our whole lives, which may (again, only from the inside) seem to shift the universe, but that's mostly just an illusion of perspective.
Yeah, it didn't look like you were going in that direction, and I glossed over the last sentence. I'm still not really sure that the idea of being a pocket in an infinitely old universe really changes things much compared to the idea that the Big Bang created the entirety of the universe. Either option is in the realm of unknown and probably unknowable.
Among other things, if the universe always existed, where is the fresh matter coming from that's fueling all our stars? Everything should have burned out already in an infinitely old universe. You'd have to invent some source of matter generation or non-energy-conservation, and that's far more problematic than the current big bang theory..
Yes. In my lane, coming toward me, on the interstate. With two other terrified passengers sitting inside.
Luckily he was half on the shoulder and I was looking far enough ahead and had space to get over into the other lane.
To this day, I don't know why he didn't just stop and turn around. Or just pull over and stop.
I've had a couple tell me my card wasn't signed. (I tend to write "See ID" but it wore off.)
I had one insane individual who insisted they couldn't complete the sale if the card didn't have a signature on it because the card signature had to match the slip signature. She would not accept "See ID" or cross-check my ID. So she made me sign the card while standing in front of her, and then compared the signature I just put on the card with the signature I just put on the slip. What would that prove? I do not know. But I did it, and then smudged it off before putting the card back in my wallet.
I have had many, many, many cashiers flip over the card, stare at the strip (either blank or with "See ID" on it) and then flip it back over and hand it to me. I don't know if it's an old reflex that lost its purpose and became ritual, or if they're just putting on a pose for the camera.
I've had a few ask to see ID. Some seem to do it for all purchases, often asking or apologizing before they've even really looked at the card. A few actually read the card and then ask. I always thank the latter for being diligent.
Right. Why limit yourself to only seeing what you can in person? And that's not just a matter of location, but scale and interactivity, too. Why go to a planetarium, when you can go to the stars? Zoom out and see the whole solar system, zoom in and watch nuclear fusion in the core of the sun.
Of course field trips ought to be a niche use. I'd love it at home, to be able to explore all kinds of things. Other cities and countries, national parks, outer space, the inner workings of machinery, you name it. Sure, being there in person can't be topped, but given the cost and time requirements of travel, I'd settle for a substitute most of the time.
Yep. I moved from the Midwest to Colorado a while back. I've noticed we get more yellow and less of the reds and purples. I generally assumed that had to do with either the type of trees that grow at elevation, or something in the soil, that made the difference. I hadn't considered the daily temperature fluctuation might have been a part of it.
Then again, we have a bigger swing out here (colder at night) because of the thin air, so maybe that really does bring us back to the types of trees that grow here.
What do you mean here? Where I live, every grocery store has pretty much the same product lines.
Where I live, the two City Markets in town, roughly 3 miles apart, only overlap stock by about 75%. One of them carries X, Y, and Z, but doesn't carry A, B, and C, while the other is reversed. We end up alternating visits to two different instances of the same chain just to find all the things we like. The remaining 3 stores (Safeway, Vitamin Cottage, and Natural Grocer's) have wildly divergent products and brands.
Once, ironically. I had ten-thousand spoons and no knife.