But it's not meant to be; it's recreational. Two forms of recreation are compared. That is an entirely sensible metaphor that none of the other respondents had trouble grasping. Plenty of people, entirely free of personality defects, go rock climbing simply for the challenge! This is in no way unusual. You are not precluded from climbing a mountain (again, recreationally) just because someone else flew a helicopter to the top.
But neither of these two things have anything to do with my actual point.
Even in a hypothetical world where excellence itself is obviated by technology, or some race of superior beings, or even by mere changing tastes, the challenge itself still exists. Every time someone faces an obstacle it is a reflection on their own upbringing and personal history, and that is equally if not more important than the actual magnitude of (artistic) accomplishment. Even if—no, when—all you say about human standards of beauty fades, and there is nothing left remotely humanlike to judge subjective aesthetics, the achievements of those who lived and worked and created will not be diminished. Neither the sands of time nor the mountainous shoulders of giants yet unborn having any bearing upon this.
In the original phrasing it was more of a fancy-schmancy science fiction hovercraft, the sort that required no training to use. Without a doubt the design and construction is more impressive, but that's not really the operator's concern.
Everest was actually my original example, but I changed it because, although (as everyone else has now pointed out) while it's been done, you're right, it's incredibly dangerous and possibly even harder to do than climbing by hand. If this does not satisfy you, substitute some sort of high-atmosphere, highly manoeuvrable balloon or space craft. The general point remains: respect (especially in art) comes not just from what you do, but how you do it.
Getting technical, I'm pretty sure the slap-drone would've intervened. We're on an Orbital here, after all. You can't even decapitate yourself within 30 feet of a terminal without help being sent!
Given that this was a metaphor about writing a symphony, I am truly strained to understand how that observation is relevant. Assume the mountain climbing was recreational.
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Feel a sense of accomplishment. To paraphrase Iain Banks: a robot composing a symphony is like flying a helicopter to the top of a mountain; it presents its own unique challenges, but is not nearly as impressive as climbing it with ropes and pegs.
Actually, the L1 element (the specific genetic feature that TFA is about) is a retrotransposon, which is functionally different from a retroposon. Transposons are transposable elements ('jumping genes') that include the hardware necessary to move themselves; retroposons lack this ability. Retrotransposons share the "retro" in their name with retroposons because they are both converted into RNA and then back again during the copy process. It is considered incorrect to call a retrotransposon a retroposon, even though functionally they have all of the features of a retroposon (and more).
(For anyone actually wondering, 95.45% is actually the percentage of data expected to fall within two standard deviations of the mean in a Gaussian distribution. Five standard deviations is much, much more stringent—and not really standard outside of particle physics. As we all know, most amateur scientists have the knowledge and ingenuity to discover novel quantum interactions and particles on a regular basis, and merely lack the necessary funding to access synchrotrons to test their theories.)
On one hand—it's probably worth pointing out that the American punitive system is absolutely insane, and the mildness of this should not be taken as evidence of a defective process simply because it doesn't follow suit. Indeed, there are some fairly involved legal and philosophical reasons as to why the punishments aren't more extreme. Here is a paper on it. (I haven't read all of it, but it seems sensible enough from the first few pages.) One of the key points is that a lot of money goes down the toilet on dead ends and genuine errors anyway; another is that scientific misconduct isn't actually illegal, so the power of funding bodies to defend themselves is somewhat limited. In the end, the top priority is still getting them out of science.
It's not. After this no one will touch him; his career as a researcher is over. For professors, three years of no federal grants is generally enough to kill the entire lab, and a three-year lapse in publishing is enough to kill any career on its own, with the possible exception of the most hard-boiled tenure.
Somewhat irrelevant trivia: in Toronto there is a moving company called "El Cheapo." Their motto is "Don't be a shmoe call EL CHEAPO" (replete with missing comma.) Ecce!
I was going for "you can't, you can only show it's safe under a large range of likely circumstances—unless you can trick people into thinking you've 'proven' something by lying to them." Nice guess, though? I guess?
Slashdot Mirror
But it's not meant to be; it's recreational. Two forms of recreation are compared. That is an entirely sensible metaphor that none of the other respondents had trouble grasping. Plenty of people, entirely free of personality defects, go rock climbing simply for the challenge! This is in no way unusual. You are not precluded from climbing a mountain (again, recreationally) just because someone else flew a helicopter to the top.
In fact, Everest has been climbed by a helicopter (and it was unbelievably difficult and dangerous) and some really impressive music has been composed by what is far from a strong AI (even if it is relatively formulaic).
But neither of these two things have anything to do with my actual point.
Even in a hypothetical world where excellence itself is obviated by technology, or some race of superior beings, or even by mere changing tastes, the challenge itself still exists. Every time someone faces an obstacle it is a reflection on their own upbringing and personal history, and that is equally if not more important than the actual magnitude of (artistic) accomplishment. Even if—no, when—all you say about human standards of beauty fades, and there is nothing left remotely humanlike to judge subjective aesthetics, the achievements of those who lived and worked and created will not be diminished. Neither the sands of time nor the mountainous shoulders of giants yet unborn having any bearing upon this.
In the original phrasing it was more of a fancy-schmancy science fiction hovercraft, the sort that required no training to use. Without a doubt the design and construction is more impressive, but that's not really the operator's concern.
Everest was actually my original example, but I changed it because, although (as everyone else has now pointed out) while it's been done, you're right, it's incredibly dangerous and possibly even harder to do than climbing by hand. If this does not satisfy you, substitute some sort of high-atmosphere, highly manoeuvrable balloon or space craft. The general point remains: respect (especially in art) comes not just from what you do, but how you do it.
Getting technical, I'm pretty sure the slap-drone would've intervened. We're on an Orbital here, after all. You can't even decapitate yourself within 30 feet of a terminal without help being sent!
Given that this was a metaphor about writing a symphony, I am truly strained to understand how that observation is relevant. Assume the mountain climbing was recreational.
Feel a sense of accomplishment. To paraphrase Iain Banks: a robot composing a symphony is like flying a helicopter to the top of a mountain; it presents its own unique challenges, but is not nearly as impressive as climbing it with ropes and pegs.
It will run out of ammo, and then someone will kick it or something. Problem solved!
Not to be confused with this link to when we discussed these predictions on Slashdot, back in August. Really, I'm surprised Asimov didn't predict that we'd still have dupes in 2014.
Yes... that actually made it into the Wikipedia article on retroposons, strangely.
Actually, the L1 element (the specific genetic feature that TFA is about) is a retrotransposon, which is functionally different from a retroposon. Transposons are transposable elements ('jumping genes') that include the hardware necessary to move themselves; retroposons lack this ability. Retrotransposons share the "retro" in their name with retroposons because they are both converted into RNA and then back again during the copy process. It is considered incorrect to call a retrotransposon a retroposon, even though functionally they have all of the features of a retroposon (and more).
instructions unclear; got tumour stuck in revolving door
(For anyone actually wondering, 95.45% is actually the percentage of data expected to fall within two standard deviations of the mean in a Gaussian distribution. Five standard deviations is much, much more stringent—and not really standard outside of particle physics. As we all know, most amateur scientists have the knowledge and ingenuity to discover novel quantum interactions and particles on a regular basis, and merely lack the necessary funding to access synchrotrons to test their theories.)
I really don't think his intention was to discredit amateur science by linking to the search results of "proof that amateur science sucks."
Well, it's sort of complicated.
On one hand—it's probably worth pointing out that the American punitive system is absolutely insane, and the mildness of this should not be taken as evidence of a defective process simply because it doesn't follow suit. Indeed, there are some fairly involved legal and philosophical reasons as to why the punishments aren't more extreme. Here is a paper on it. (I haven't read all of it, but it seems sensible enough from the first few pages.) One of the key points is that a lot of money goes down the toilet on dead ends and genuine errors anyway; another is that scientific misconduct isn't actually illegal, so the power of funding bodies to defend themselves is somewhat limited. In the end, the top priority is still getting them out of science.
It's not. After this no one will touch him; his career as a researcher is over. For professors, three years of no federal grants is generally enough to kill the entire lab, and a three-year lapse in publishing is enough to kill any career on its own, with the possible exception of the most hard-boiled tenure.
Somewhat irrelevant trivia: in Toronto there is a moving company called "El Cheapo." Their motto is "Don't be a shmoe call EL CHEAPO" (replete with missing comma.) Ecce!
That is the definition of uncool.
Yeah, that's strictly the domain of the Orthografiejugend.
Possibly there are a lot of other problems.
as if you could eat worthless paper or base metal.
So that's why you never see a fat rich person...
The link is in TFA, too, but followed by "(NSFL danger: do not click that link)".
Satire is ancient. If it unnerves you, that is unfortunate.
I was going for "you can't, you can only show it's safe under a large range of likely circumstances—unless you can trick people into thinking you've 'proven' something by lying to them." Nice guess, though? I guess?
Regulatory capture and biased media coverage, mostly.