. . . I'm going to pretend like I understood half that article and comment on how, under the de Broglie-Brom interpretation, the uncertainty is merely in our observations, and that the waveform of particles really does do it's thing even while not observed. And there's, like, a universe-wide waveform that influences everything, which flies in the face of locality, such as we see with spooky actions... yeah, let's go with that.
So I'm just going to have a toast to my own ignorance and bow out of this one. Here be dragons and wizards.
So, for anyone that's unaware, MichaelKrisopeitXYZ, for varying values of XYZ, is an example of a classic internet troll. He's just here to argue and annoy people. Let it go. Feeding him only empowers him. Mod him into oblivion, ignore him, and this too shall pass.
Go grok the Butterfly Effect and you'll see how a probabilistic microscopic universe means that the macroscopic universe is also probabilistic.
Really, you're sounding like one of those people trying to make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. It's the same thing with the same mechanics. I mean, sure, it's a pretty safe bet that every atom in the sun won't decay overnight and the sun will indeed rise tomorrow. An astronomically good bet. But the fact that it's a bet at all means that it's not deterministic.
Unless you're arguing that a negligible chance isn't worth acknowledging, in which case I'd have to agree.
Really? Locality? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd say that the uncertainty principle is a pretty solid case for the existence of free will. That whole probabilistic universe thing is kinda antithetical to a deterministic universe.
I mean, with locality, venus isn't going to be influence my immediate actions, but if it's a deterministic universe, it doesn't really matter if it's the rest of the universe steering the boat, or if it's just my surroundings, the same things going to happen regardless. And spooky actions violate locality, but according to a paper, they do it in a probabilistic way, so I'm not quite seeing how locality is an argument for free will.
Care to explain? And go easy, I'm not really a physicist and don't have much patience for metaphysics.
The pasta. You mean wake up and smell the pasta. The glorious smell of divine carbohydrates smothered in both marinara AND red sauce, nestling two bountiful orbs of meat and bread conglomerate.
Geez, he's right, I've been using things like grep and gcc just because I'm familiar with them and they perform the task at hand. Time to upgrade to the hip and new version that does the same damn thing in a slightly different way!
Not that I'm against progress, but it's a matter of weighing the hassle against the gains. Forcing the new kids to learn the old tools can be annoying, but good for them. Likewise, showing grandpa that there's a diff with side-by-side comparisons is probably a good idea.
No. No it isn't. There's the science of religion which involves neurology and sociology. And there is religion on science, like some shaman's views on what Thor thinks of electricity. You could argue there's the religion of science, like Sagan's shtick, or Spinoza's thing. Kinda. But science is not religion, and religion is not science. Both have been around a long time. Even if the modern science methods got started ~400 years ago. Even if the current flavors of religion got started ~2000, or ~3000, or ~100 years ago. Both science and religion are older then that.
As for belief in "some invisible guy in the sky" there is no more or less proof for his existence than there is for the top quark.
Except for the part where top quarks are observable. You're right that I myself haven't observed one, and that I'm trusting others, and that you could find a number of people that swear by his noodly appendage. But the big difference that makes the top quark more substantial then invisible pink unicorns is repeatability. If ask these people I trust how to go see a top quark, they'll answer that I have to build an accelerator and other devices. And they'll explain how they work. And why. And if I built them, as others have, I too could see the existence of a top quark. Meanwhile, if you ask a religious person to reproduce miracles, or how to see proof of god for yourself, there's a endless number of excuses, or rationalizing, or "well it's metaphorical", or claims that I simply don't want it enough.
And creationists aren't necessarily idiotic. I'm with you that the young-earth group is off their rocker, but the deists that believe god kick-started the universe aren't that bad. Now, Hawking released a book explaining why that's a silly idea as well, but I haven't really groked it yet, so I can't say much. I mean, a single photon interfering with itself? That's just crazy! Crazy I tell you.
So other then your post being full of bad ideas, yeah, I'm totally with you. But none of that rant really answered the question:
But then why would you say that it ISN'T groupthink?
Because it really did look like you denied that murder was anything other then a commandment. Which is about as silly as saying Jesus rode dinosaurs.
I'm actually not familiar with how Canada got it's democratic government, doesn't it technically still hail to the queen?
But how is mistrusting people a conservative trait? Is paranoia somehow imbued into the conservative movement?
The Japanese get a kick out of profiling and the gimmicky amusement of having a machine tell you that girls like the girly brand of tea isn't a long-term business model.
Pub Quiz is cause for PTSD. There are good games, bad games, and the games that keep you up at night shivering in terror and endless questions of why, why WHY didn't I answer d? I knew that question, I knew it. It should have been obvious. The horror, THE HORROR. If only I hadn't picked c. I was just careless. It shouldn't have mattered. But it all came down to that one question. Why dear god why!?
Sure, but Stark putting out another version of the suit is hardly newsworthy. He treats those things like candy. Sometimes he gets TWO new suits in the same comic.
Eh, there's not really anything such as genetically perfect, even for a specific environment. In evolution, the main value is "good enough". Sometimes maybe "prolific" like ants. Or sometimes "dominate", but that has it's own pitfalls like the super-shark that ate themselves out of an ecosystem.
But you do have a point. Sexual reproduction is typically faster to adapt then asexual reproduction.
I was going to say something along the lines of how a strain of bacteria is probably able to change a larger percentage of it's code-base, then elephants in any given time frame simply due to their reproduction frequencies....but this is software, small changes can be drastic and massive overhauls can be transparent.
Or hardware fails. When an instruction to add 1 to the PC register simply doesn't, it can cause everything to fall apart. That's bad, but it's obvious. Worse still is when data gets a random blip. Now the program continues to function, but the output is wrong. And not necessarily obviously wrong. Just wrong enough to propagate.
If you are operating in the real world you must work on a system of probabilities. What's the acceptable rate for this thing to fail? If it can get kicked over weekly without fuss, then git'er'done. If it has to have five nine up time, you'd best have redundancy and fail-overs. If you're calculating the Xth digit of PI, then you need to something to check your memory for errors in real-time.
This is a hard lesson for com sci majors, but the real world isn't theoretical. I think a simple robotics course would really hammer this into their heads.
Yeah, I could see this sort of thing coming when I heard that the whole point in building up a patent portfolio was to keep others from suing you in some sort of MAD deterrence setup. They can't sue us because we'll sue them in retaliation? When has a lawyer EVER said "no, you can't sue them, that'd be stupid"?
The CEO flat-out tells you that only criminals care about privacy
Bullshit. Cite that sonovabitch. Post a link, do it.
Oh, but you can't, because you're spouting bullshit. Schmidt reminded people that he's bound by law, and rightly so, to hand over search history to the cops.
Let me be REAL clear about this. People have views and opinions on subjects. They feel a certain way or have predictions about how things are going to play out. They go out and tell other about this views. They provide explanations, examples, links, quotes, and arguments to help convince others. Some people have good insight and others are convinced and share their views. Some arguments are not compelling, and no one cares. And others still are so balls to the walls crazy that people take the opposite view. People rally against said craziness. This is what you have done.
You are bending the truth past the point of breaking. What you have said is factually untrue. I'm not sure why you said what you did. Perhaps you're lying. Perhaps you are quoting someone else, like an inflammatory headline, or a talking head, and never looked it up yourself. Perhaps you read his quote and somehow you twisted and redefined his words to mean what you wanted them to mean. Regardless, the only thing you've done is make me believe that some people have an irrational hatred of Google, and that half the crap out there is FUD.
Now, Google has a MASSIVE potential for evil. If they all showed up to work with goatees one day, they could trample a lot of people. Just like Microsoft. Just like any government. And as soon as you can point to some actual factual evil-doing, like their opt-out Buzz, or taking over the name "Go", then I'll shift my views of them a little. But this only makes me trust them more.
What, the extreamo-anti-lillypad nutcases? They usually just use garden shears.
The impact of the main tower collapsing is that everyone in the tower and the surrounding area are dead. A lot like a skyscrapper on land.
For protection, they'll probably use the same countermeasure that we use today: Surface to Air Missiles. Or did you think this particular security hole was still open?
He didn't claim that they originated the rules, merely that they expressed them.
And that it specifically wasn't groupthink, but rather this religious thing instead.
It's like my saying that "thou shalt not kill" is NOT a christian commandment, but rather a decree of Mohammad. Or some Indian yogi. Or good advice from my dad. But that's stupid, as it IS one of the commandments.
If he had said, "It's also one of the commandments" rather than "that's not groupthink...", that'd be factually true.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . I'm going to pretend like I understood half that article and comment on how, under the de Broglie-Brom interpretation, the uncertainty is merely in our observations, and that the waveform of particles really does do it's thing even while not observed. And there's, like, a universe-wide waveform that influences everything, which flies in the face of locality, such as we see with spooky actions... yeah, let's go with that.
So I'm just going to have a toast to my own ignorance and bow out of this one. Here be dragons and wizards.
Couldn't tell, it kept thrusting this pitchfork in front of the camera.
So, for anyone that's unaware, MichaelKrisopeitXYZ, for varying values of XYZ, is an example of a classic internet troll. He's just here to argue and annoy people. Let it go. Feeding him only empowers him. Mod him into oblivion, ignore him, and this too shall pass.
Go grok the Butterfly Effect and you'll see how a probabilistic microscopic universe means that the macroscopic universe is also probabilistic.
Really, you're sounding like one of those people trying to make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. It's the same thing with the same mechanics. I mean, sure, it's a pretty safe bet that every atom in the sun won't decay overnight and the sun will indeed rise tomorrow. An astronomically good bet. But the fact that it's a bet at all means that it's not deterministic.
Unless you're arguing that a negligible chance isn't worth acknowledging, in which case I'd have to agree.
Really? Locality? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd say that the uncertainty principle is a pretty solid case for the existence of free will. That whole probabilistic universe thing is kinda antithetical to a deterministic universe.
I mean, with locality, venus isn't going to be influence my immediate actions, but if it's a deterministic universe, it doesn't really matter if it's the rest of the universe steering the boat, or if it's just my surroundings, the same things going to happen regardless. And spooky actions violate locality, but according to a paper, they do it in a probabilistic way, so I'm not quite seeing how locality is an argument for free will.
Care to explain? And go easy, I'm not really a physicist and don't have much patience for metaphysics.
I remember Sinbad having that same problem.
Fuck yeah!
The pasta. You mean wake up and smell the pasta.
The glorious smell of divine carbohydrates smothered in both marinara AND red sauce, nestling two bountiful orbs of meat and bread conglomerate.
Ramen brother, ramen.
Arguably that's the gambling, drinking, and other substance abuse.
I'm just saying, you don't see statistics professors playing the slots.
Geez, he's right, I've been using things like grep and gcc just because I'm familiar with them and they perform the task at hand. Time to upgrade to the hip and new version that does the same damn thing in a slightly different way!
Not that I'm against progress, but it's a matter of weighing the hassle against the gains. Forcing the new kids to learn the old tools can be annoying, but good for them. Likewise, showing grandpa that there's a diff with side-by-side comparisons is probably a good idea.
Religion is science.
No. No it isn't. There's the science of religion which involves neurology and sociology. And there is religion on science, like some shaman's views on what Thor thinks of electricity. You could argue there's the religion of science, like Sagan's shtick, or Spinoza's thing. Kinda. But science is not religion, and religion is not science. Both have been around a long time. Even if the modern science methods got started ~400 years ago. Even if the current flavors of religion got started ~2000, or ~3000, or ~100 years ago. Both science and religion are older then that.
As for belief in "some invisible guy in the sky" there is no more or less proof for his existence than there is for the top quark.
Except for the part where top quarks are observable. You're right that I myself haven't observed one, and that I'm trusting others, and that you could find a number of people that swear by his noodly appendage. But the big difference that makes the top quark more substantial then invisible pink unicorns is repeatability. If ask these people I trust how to go see a top quark, they'll answer that I have to build an accelerator and other devices. And they'll explain how they work. And why. And if I built them, as others have, I too could see the existence of a top quark. Meanwhile, if you ask a religious person to reproduce miracles, or how to see proof of god for yourself, there's a endless number of excuses, or rationalizing, or "well it's metaphorical", or claims that I simply don't want it enough.
And creationists aren't necessarily idiotic. I'm with you that the young-earth group is off their rocker, but the deists that believe god kick-started the universe aren't that bad. Now, Hawking released a book explaining why that's a silly idea as well, but I haven't really groked it yet, so I can't say much. I mean, a single photon interfering with itself? That's just crazy! Crazy I tell you.
So other then your post being full of bad ideas, yeah, I'm totally with you. But none of that rant really answered the question:
But then why would you say that it ISN'T groupthink?
Because it really did look like you denied that murder was anything other then a commandment. Which is about as silly as saying Jesus rode dinosaurs.
free software released under a BSD license,
Ho ho HO! I see what you did there.
So the only "true" Christians are ones that don't piss you off?
I'm actually not familiar with how Canada got it's democratic government, doesn't it technically still hail to the queen?
But how is mistrusting people a conservative trait? Is paranoia somehow imbued into the conservative movement?
It explains a lot, actually.
and you'll still get a coke.
Only in Japan would people feel peer pressure from a machine.
The Japanese get a kick out of profiling and the gimmicky amusement of having a machine tell you that girls like the girly brand of tea isn't a long-term business model.
Pub Quiz is cause for PTSD. There are good games, bad games, and the games that keep you up at night shivering in terror and endless questions of why, why WHY didn't I answer d? I knew that question, I knew it. It should have been obvious. The horror, THE HORROR. If only I hadn't picked c. I was just careless. It shouldn't have mattered. But it all came down to that one question. Why dear god why!?
Sure, but Stark putting out another version of the suit is hardly newsworthy. He treats those things like candy. Sometimes he gets TWO new suits in the same comic.
Eh, there's not really anything such as genetically perfect, even for a specific environment. In evolution, the main value is "good enough". Sometimes maybe "prolific" like ants. Or sometimes "dominate", but that has it's own pitfalls like the super-shark that ate themselves out of an ecosystem.
...but this is software, small changes can be drastic and massive overhauls can be transparent.
But you do have a point. Sexual reproduction is typically faster to adapt then asexual reproduction.
I was going to say something along the lines of how a strain of bacteria is probably able to change a larger percentage of it's code-base, then elephants in any given time frame simply due to their reproduction frequencies.
Or hardware fails. When an instruction to add 1 to the PC register simply doesn't, it can cause everything to fall apart. That's bad, but it's obvious. Worse still is when data gets a random blip. Now the program continues to function, but the output is wrong. And not necessarily obviously wrong. Just wrong enough to propagate.
If you are operating in the real world you must work on a system of probabilities. What's the acceptable rate for this thing to fail? If it can get kicked over weekly without fuss, then git'er'done. If it has to have five nine up time, you'd best have redundancy and fail-overs. If you're calculating the Xth digit of PI, then you need to something to check your memory for errors in real-time.
This is a hard lesson for com sci majors, but the real world isn't theoretical. I think a simple robotics course would really hammer this into their heads.
Yeah, I could see this sort of thing coming when I heard that the whole point in building up a patent portfolio was to keep others from suing you in some sort of MAD deterrence setup.
They can't sue us because we'll sue them in retaliation? When has a lawyer EVER said "no, you can't sue them, that'd be stupid"?
The CEO flat-out tells you that only criminals care about privacy
Bullshit. Cite that sonovabitch. Post a link, do it.
Oh, but you can't, because you're spouting bullshit. Schmidt reminded people that he's bound by law, and rightly so, to hand over search history to the cops.
Let me be REAL clear about this. People have views and opinions on subjects. They feel a certain way or have predictions about how things are going to play out. They go out and tell other about this views. They provide explanations, examples, links, quotes, and arguments to help convince others. Some people have good insight and others are convinced and share their views. Some arguments are not compelling, and no one cares. And others still are so balls to the walls crazy that people take the opposite view. People rally against said craziness. This is what you have done.
You are bending the truth past the point of breaking. What you have said is factually untrue. I'm not sure why you said what you did. Perhaps you're lying. Perhaps you are quoting someone else, like an inflammatory headline, or a talking head, and never looked it up yourself. Perhaps you read his quote and somehow you twisted and redefined his words to mean what you wanted them to mean. Regardless, the only thing you've done is make me believe that some people have an irrational hatred of Google, and that half the crap out there is FUD.
Now, Google has a MASSIVE potential for evil. If they all showed up to work with goatees one day, they could trample a lot of people. Just like Microsoft. Just like any government. And as soon as you can point to some actual factual evil-doing, like their opt-out Buzz, or taking over the name "Go", then I'll shift my views of them a little. But this only makes me trust them more.
What, the extreamo-anti-lillypad nutcases? They usually just use garden shears.
The impact of the main tower collapsing is that everyone in the tower and the surrounding area are dead. A lot like a skyscrapper on land.
For protection, they'll probably use the same countermeasure that we use today: Surface to Air Missiles. Or did you think this particular security hole was still open?
He didn't claim that they originated the rules, merely that they expressed them.
And that it specifically wasn't groupthink, but rather this religious thing instead.
It's like my saying that "thou shalt not kill" is NOT a christian commandment, but rather a decree of Mohammad. Or some Indian yogi. Or good advice from my dad. But that's stupid, as it IS one of the commandments.
If he had said, "It's also one of the commandments" rather than "that's not groupthink...", that'd be factually true.