We can't even get there with current tech. There's no way to keep a person healthy after a voyage that long, let alone on the surface. The only way we could make a colony work, even if we could magically transport millions of tons of material, is to tunnel deep underground. At which point: why? What would be different from being deep underground on Earth, aside from the whole "not sure if low gravity is eventually fatal" thing.
Or, you know, its just a dating site for people with HIV. HIV patients are NOT lepers, and HIV is not necessarily terminal. You won't catch HIV from being in the presence, or even being intimate with , as long as unprotected sex isn't occuring.
Leprosy isn't necessarily terminal: in fact it's curable. Like HIV, it's contagious, but not easily so (though perhaps more easily than HIV). Funny thing, prejudice.
Indeed, but the sound you hear from the other strings, the reason your fingering on the other strings matters, that's resonance, as is the natural amplification of lower notes from the sound box in an acoustic guitar. The string itself: that's simple harmonic oscillation.
Might as well talk about colonizing the center of the Sun and getting your drinking water from Saturn's rings. This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.
Well, not this century for sure. We know what a Warm Earth looks like - after all, the Earth naturally oscillates between warm periods and ice ages. It's a freaking paradise compared to Mars.
Of all the ways to avoid "the ravages of global warming", going to Mars would be the nuttiest I've heard. Is it somehow easier to build a self-contained biosphere on Mars than on Earth? What nonsense.
What I learned, back in the day, was that resonance was a coupling between the period of the input energy and the natural period of the system. If the input energy is steady or aperiodic, oscillation in the system doesn't automatically make it resonance. Is this not the way most engineers use the term?
Not all oscillation is resonance. This was a positive feedback loop that would have happened regardless of the bridge's resonant frequency. Resonance is the result of the incoming energy having a frequency similar to the natural vibration frequency of the object. This would have happened at high constant windspeed, or as it did from non-periodic (but frequent) gusts.
Sorry, I'm comparing the compressed main title to the raw DVD image, which is filled with all sorts of other stuff. Even then, 10x is rather best-case, and assumes you're only keeping the DTS-quality sound, not the "goes with my $1000 patch cords" raw audio tracks.
I'd keep the original streams. You'll never spare the time again to re-rip, even if you you think now that you will.
Original storage for BluRay is nuts - you can get 10x compression with h.264 with results indistinguishable, screenshot-to-screenshot, by the eye.
For BluRay, compression with those good settings is slower than ripping, on reasonably good hardware. With h.256 you get better results, compression-wise, but it takes even longer.
At some point I may start re-compressing my h.264-encoded BR library using h.265. I doubt I'll bother to re-rip, unless experiments show me I can actually see the difference.
Your employers are not your parents. It's not their duty, not should it be, to look out for your best interests and no one should ever be confused by this. A job is not a hugbox. And none of that stops you from having a great life - you just have to plan responsibly for the shit that happens in life.
I just pretend the Ewoks are Wookies an it's a good film. It's not a great film, though: the first 40 minutes or so is a different movie, and not just the location. The end has too many plot threads being intercut, making it a bit incoherent. But, damn, the space battle is epic - something about it makes it better than any of the scenes in the prequels.
I like Jedi better than Empire (though both seem like a couple of shorter movies cobbled together). My trick? I mentally replace all Ewoks with Wookies when watching, and suddenly the second half of the movie is fine.
No problems at all. Every adult is responsible for the consequences of one's choices. Doing the research before making important choices, like where to work, is a key part of being a grown-up, as is contingency planning for when it goes to shit anyhow.
Do you keep an eye on the weather before heading out? On the traffic before commuting? Do you blame the system when you get rained on because you didn't bother to bring an umbrella?
her buddies will ensure she gets another position at the top of another company without any shareholder input into it,
What nonsense. Shareholders vote on the board, and the board selects the CEO. You can bet the holders of the majority of shares are content with a CEO selection. Yes, it's one vote per share, not per shareholder, but even so "minority shareholder lawsuit" is a common enough occurrence if the board ignores its fiduciary responsibility.
Godel showed a fundamental limitation of logical systems. Like I said - you can disprove a system using the system, but you can't prove one. I learned about all this from classes taught by the Philosophy department in school - though there was similar content in CompSci classes from a very different angle.
I guess it's a matter of debate whether you call Proof Theory (and its parent, metalogic) math or philosophy or both, but you seem to be calling all systems of formal reasoning "math", which isn't what most people mean. Certainly there are journals with "Philosophy" in the title where such results are published.
If one looks at actual attempts at ethics, basic principles are never developed completely in vacuum. There are always some real world situation or pattern that the proposer of the axioms is trying to abstract. Math or logic is very important to evaluating choices of axioms or to precluding certain sorts of axioms in a simple way.
You won't get far in physics without math, but they're nevertheless distinct fields. Math is a tool used in many fields.
Why should we expect that such a structure can exist?
Because it hasn't been proven not to, and it's the job of philosophers to take on such problems. Whenever a good, practical answer is found to such fundamental questions, it stops being philosophy and becomes some new discipline. Sure, it's quite rare, but it's important when it happens.
What does philosophy have to say about the abstract world that mathematics doesn't say? Give your abstract idea any structure, any consistency, any pattern, and it becomes a mathematical idea.
Logic is still taught by the philosophy department in many universities. Meta-logic is a branch of philosophy, though it has lots of overlap with computability theory. In any case, you can't reason very far about "does math work" using math - that's the fundamental problem of meta-logic. How you you reason about the boundaries of a system of reasoning? You can't prove that a system of reasoning is good using that same system, obviously (though you can't sometimes prove it doesn't, though contradiction).
Also, math tells us little about Epistemology, Theory of Identity, Theory of Language, Meta-Ethics, whether induction works, whether we're in the Matrix, and on and on. Basically, all of modern philosophy.
strongly disagree. For starters, a key requirement of ethics is consistency (that is, you try for a system with objectivity) which brings in logic and mathematics.
Sure, but that's only relevant once you have first principles to reason from. Where do those come from? What sort of system of evaluation even makes sense in this realm? That's the field of Meta-Ethics: how could you know or prove that an ethical system was correct?
It's not the difficulties of ethics that make general agreement difficult. It's the conflicts of interest.
How is that not a key difficulty of ethics? We're not very good yet at reasoning about ethical systems as we don't have a good structure to shield the process from individuals desired, self-serving outcomes. Similarly for political systems and political debate, where honest debate barely exists. It's a hard philosophical problem, one I doubt we'll solve this century.
Ah, I see what you mean about "safe to publish". That's not a security flaw, though, in the way people usually mean that, but a lack of design oversight. Sure, no toolchain can fix broken-by-design.
I don't think anyone has made a web page in C this century, and most PHP problems are about "cleaning input" AFAIK, which is a bad strategy to begin with. I was thinking more of your example of the VBA world, automating Excel and Access and the like, where MS actually provides pretty good tooling these days to do things the safe way. Unfortunately, they do nothing to make it difficult to build SQL queries through string concatenation, so plenty of people never discover the LINQ toolkit. It's at least better than it was 10 years ago.
You'll never get a world where clueless losers can't create a web site/API. Tooling only ever gets better. We can work to make those tools safer, however.
It'd be lovely to have magical tools that guess what the clueless user wants to do, guess what's safe to do with that data, and guess how to do it safely (instead of trained people who know which data is safe to publish, and how).
It's not that hard, for common attacks. Injection attacks are caused by using text assembly to build commands (or build XML), so just don't provide that, or at least don't documents it and focus on query-building components and so on. Attacks on the web code itself, like cross-site scripting and so on, that's the publishing framework. No need for the scripter to even be involved there. Not sure what you mean by data that's safe to "publish".
The consequences of improperly designed software systems have increased 10,000 fold. A little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing when writing software for the internet. We don't need every worker publishing their own little poorly-designed web api to their part of the company database that they wrote in Excel and published from via Access.
Of course we do! What we need is tools that make this OK. For example, in exactly the sort of environment you describe, if "constructing a SQL query by appending text" is disallowed, by having a DB API that just doesn't accept raw text, and you have to assemble everything using LINQ parts, you're magically free from DB injection attacks.
People who know just a bit of scripting aren't looking to put together a web API from raw components, they want a simple framework using tools they already understand. That's great! That's exactly what should happen. And as long as the tools are safe, the result will be safe.
This is a problem for tool creators: make the easy way the safe way. Problem solved.
One can ask whether or not a particular result of an experiment is 'true', as in 'did that really occur'? Or one can ask what is really happening, what is the 'truth' behind a physical process?
The distinction vanishes if you think deeply about it. I think some people confuse "accurate" with "true". Science discovers ever-more-accurate models, but you can't ever prove them true in any sense of the word. You can't prove them exactly accurate, and you can prove that the underlying reality looks anything like the model, and so on.
think the parent poster was suggesting that knowledge ('do my theories basically work more or less?') is in many respects more useful than 'truth' ('what's really going on here?').
That's not really what the word "knowledge" means, as knowledge requires truth. "Useful" is perhaps a bit subjective, as research scientists and engineers have been arguing forever.
It didn't "stall", it just reached a point where it seemed all the big questions were answered, and only minor refinements were left. Turns out of course that those "minor refinements" would revolutionize the field(s).
Philosophy is no different - it just moves more slowly. The scientific method is a wonderful accelerator to progress, in the domain of the testable. You might wait a few centuries for a breakthrough idea in a given philosophical field.
Oh, sure you do. An omniscient being could simple tell us the answers - or at least tell us the first principles. We can postulate the sort of god who defines those first principles as well. Demonstrating that such a god exists is a separate matter (though I'd imagine it would be an easy task were the proposition true), but it does provide an out.
It could very well be that all is left, is nothing more than intractable unanswerable questions, which only lead to dead end.
We've believed that about science a few times in the past 200 years, as well. But then some breakthrough reveals uncounted new questions. Philosophy is the same, just slower. For example, I don't think ethical questions are inherently unanswerable, it's just that we're not good at that field yet.
Slashdot Mirror
If you believe "transporting millions of tons of material"to mars is "entirely achievable with current technology", well, I don't know what to say.
Nah, even then you'll never plant Earth plants on the surface of mars - not enough sunlight by a factor of four, I think.
Colonizing Mars is doable with current tech.
We can't even get there with current tech. There's no way to keep a person healthy after a voyage that long, let alone on the surface. The only way we could make a colony work, even if we could magically transport millions of tons of material, is to tunnel deep underground. At which point: why? What would be different from being deep underground on Earth, aside from the whole "not sure if low gravity is eventually fatal" thing.
Or, you know, its just a dating site for people with HIV. HIV patients are NOT lepers, and HIV is not necessarily terminal. You won't catch HIV from being in the presence, or even being intimate with , as long as unprotected sex isn't occuring.
Leprosy isn't necessarily terminal: in fact it's curable. Like HIV, it's contagious, but not easily so (though perhaps more easily than HIV). Funny thing, prejudice.
Indeed, but the sound you hear from the other strings, the reason your fingering on the other strings matters, that's resonance, as is the natural amplification of lower notes from the sound box in an acoustic guitar. The string itself: that's simple harmonic oscillation.
Might as well talk about colonizing the center of the Sun and getting your drinking water from Saturn's rings. This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.
Well, not this century for sure. We know what a Warm Earth looks like - after all, the Earth naturally oscillates between warm periods and ice ages. It's a freaking paradise compared to Mars.
Of all the ways to avoid "the ravages of global warming", going to Mars would be the nuttiest I've heard. Is it somehow easier to build a self-contained biosphere on Mars than on Earth? What nonsense.
What I learned, back in the day, was that resonance was a coupling between the period of the input energy and the natural period of the system. If the input energy is steady or aperiodic, oscillation in the system doesn't automatically make it resonance. Is this not the way most engineers use the term?
Not all oscillation is resonance. This was a positive feedback loop that would have happened regardless of the bridge's resonant frequency. Resonance is the result of the incoming energy having a frequency similar to the natural vibration frequency of the object. This would have happened at high constant windspeed, or as it did from non-periodic (but frequent) gusts.
No.
Sorry, I'm comparing the compressed main title to the raw DVD image, which is filled with all sorts of other stuff. Even then, 10x is rather best-case, and assumes you're only keeping the DTS-quality sound, not the "goes with my $1000 patch cords" raw audio tracks.
I'd keep the original streams. You'll never spare the time again to re-rip, even if you you think now that you will.
Original storage for BluRay is nuts - you can get 10x compression with h.264 with results indistinguishable, screenshot-to-screenshot, by the eye.
For BluRay, compression with those good settings is slower than ripping, on reasonably good hardware. With h.256 you get better results, compression-wise, but it takes even longer.
At some point I may start re-compressing my h.264-encoded BR library using h.265. I doubt I'll bother to re-rip, unless experiments show me I can actually see the difference.
Your employers are not your parents. It's not their duty, not should it be, to look out for your best interests and no one should ever be confused by this. A job is not a hugbox. And none of that stops you from having a great life - you just have to plan responsibly for the shit that happens in life.
I just pretend the Ewoks are Wookies an it's a good film. It's not a great film, though: the first 40 minutes or so is a different movie, and not just the location. The end has too many plot threads being intercut, making it a bit incoherent. But, damn, the space battle is epic - something about it makes it better than any of the scenes in the prequels.
I like Jedi better than Empire (though both seem like a couple of shorter movies cobbled together). My trick? I mentally replace all Ewoks with Wookies when watching, and suddenly the second half of the movie is fine.
No problems at all. Every adult is responsible for the consequences of one's choices. Doing the research before making important choices, like where to work, is a key part of being a grown-up, as is contingency planning for when it goes to shit anyhow.
Do you keep an eye on the weather before heading out? On the traffic before commuting? Do you blame the system when you get rained on because you didn't bother to bring an umbrella?
her buddies will ensure she gets another position at the top of another company without any shareholder input into it,
What nonsense. Shareholders vote on the board, and the board selects the CEO. You can bet the holders of the majority of shares are content with a CEO selection. Yes, it's one vote per share, not per shareholder, but even so "minority shareholder lawsuit" is a common enough occurrence if the board ignores its fiduciary responsibility.
Godel showed a fundamental limitation of logical systems. Like I said - you can disprove a system using the system, but you can't prove one. I learned about all this from classes taught by the Philosophy department in school - though there was similar content in CompSci classes from a very different angle.
I guess it's a matter of debate whether you call Proof Theory (and its parent, metalogic) math or philosophy or both, but you seem to be calling all systems of formal reasoning "math", which isn't what most people mean. Certainly there are journals with "Philosophy" in the title where such results are published.
If one looks at actual attempts at ethics, basic principles are never developed completely in vacuum. There are always some real world situation or pattern that the proposer of the axioms is trying to abstract. Math or logic is very important to evaluating choices of axioms or to precluding certain sorts of axioms in a simple way.
You won't get far in physics without math, but they're nevertheless distinct fields. Math is a tool used in many fields.
Why should we expect that such a structure can exist?
Because it hasn't been proven not to, and it's the job of philosophers to take on such problems. Whenever a good, practical answer is found to such fundamental questions, it stops being philosophy and becomes some new discipline. Sure, it's quite rare, but it's important when it happens.
What does philosophy have to say about the abstract world that mathematics doesn't say? Give your abstract idea any structure, any consistency, any pattern, and it becomes a mathematical idea.
Logic is still taught by the philosophy department in many universities. Meta-logic is a branch of philosophy, though it has lots of overlap with computability theory. In any case, you can't reason very far about "does math work" using math - that's the fundamental problem of meta-logic. How you you reason about the boundaries of a system of reasoning? You can't prove that a system of reasoning is good using that same system, obviously (though you can't sometimes prove it doesn't, though contradiction).
Also, math tells us little about Epistemology, Theory of Identity, Theory of Language, Meta-Ethics, whether induction works, whether we're in the Matrix, and on and on. Basically, all of modern philosophy.
strongly disagree. For starters, a key requirement of ethics is consistency (that is, you try for a system with objectivity) which brings in logic and mathematics.
Sure, but that's only relevant once you have first principles to reason from. Where do those come from? What sort of system of evaluation even makes sense in this realm? That's the field of Meta-Ethics: how could you know or prove that an ethical system was correct?
It's not the difficulties of ethics that make general agreement difficult. It's the conflicts of interest.
How is that not a key difficulty of ethics? We're not very good yet at reasoning about ethical systems as we don't have a good structure to shield the process from individuals desired, self-serving outcomes. Similarly for political systems and political debate, where honest debate barely exists. It's a hard philosophical problem, one I doubt we'll solve this century.
Oh, sure, but philosophically we can postulate a god that did talk to us, which would be an easy out for moral first principles.
Ah, I see what you mean about "safe to publish". That's not a security flaw, though, in the way people usually mean that, but a lack of design oversight. Sure, no toolchain can fix broken-by-design.
I don't think anyone has made a web page in C this century, and most PHP problems are about "cleaning input" AFAIK, which is a bad strategy to begin with. I was thinking more of your example of the VBA world, automating Excel and Access and the like, where MS actually provides pretty good tooling these days to do things the safe way. Unfortunately, they do nothing to make it difficult to build SQL queries through string concatenation, so plenty of people never discover the LINQ toolkit. It's at least better than it was 10 years ago.
You'll never get a world where clueless losers can't create a web site/API. Tooling only ever gets better. We can work to make those tools safer, however.
It'd be lovely to have magical tools that guess what the clueless user wants to do, guess what's safe to do with that data, and guess how to do it safely (instead of trained people who know which data is safe to publish, and how).
It's not that hard, for common attacks. Injection attacks are caused by using text assembly to build commands (or build XML), so just don't provide that, or at least don't documents it and focus on query-building components and so on. Attacks on the web code itself, like cross-site scripting and so on, that's the publishing framework. No need for the scripter to even be involved there. Not sure what you mean by data that's safe to "publish".
The consequences of improperly designed software systems have increased 10,000 fold. A little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing when writing software for the internet. We don't need every worker publishing their own little poorly-designed web api to their part of the company database that they wrote in Excel and published from via Access.
Of course we do! What we need is tools that make this OK. For example, in exactly the sort of environment you describe, if "constructing a SQL query by appending text" is disallowed, by having a DB API that just doesn't accept raw text, and you have to assemble everything using LINQ parts, you're magically free from DB injection attacks.
People who know just a bit of scripting aren't looking to put together a web API from raw components, they want a simple framework using tools they already understand. That's great! That's exactly what should happen. And as long as the tools are safe, the result will be safe.
This is a problem for tool creators: make the easy way the safe way. Problem solved.
One can ask whether or not a particular result of an experiment is 'true', as in 'did that really occur'? Or one can ask what is really happening, what is the 'truth' behind a physical process?
The distinction vanishes if you think deeply about it. I think some people confuse "accurate" with "true". Science discovers ever-more-accurate models, but you can't ever prove them true in any sense of the word. You can't prove them exactly accurate, and you can prove that the underlying reality looks anything like the model, and so on.
think the parent poster was suggesting that knowledge ('do my theories basically work more or less?') is in many respects more useful than 'truth' ('what's really going on here?').
That's not really what the word "knowledge" means, as knowledge requires truth. "Useful" is perhaps a bit subjective, as research scientists and engineers have been arguing forever.
It didn't "stall", it just reached a point where it seemed all the big questions were answered, and only minor refinements were left. Turns out of course that those "minor refinements" would revolutionize the field(s).
Philosophy is no different - it just moves more slowly. The scientific method is a wonderful accelerator to progress, in the domain of the testable. You might wait a few centuries for a breakthrough idea in a given philosophical field.
Oh, sure you do. An omniscient being could simple tell us the answers - or at least tell us the first principles. We can postulate the sort of god who defines those first principles as well. Demonstrating that such a god exists is a separate matter (though I'd imagine it would be an easy task were the proposition true), but it does provide an out.
It could very well be that all is left, is nothing more than intractable unanswerable questions, which only lead to dead end.
We've believed that about science a few times in the past 200 years, as well. But then some breakthrough reveals uncounted new questions. Philosophy is the same, just slower. For example, I don't think ethical questions are inherently unanswerable, it's just that we're not good at that field yet.