I do not watch or listen to those. Purely the facts from the investigation. If it walks and talks like a duck, it must be a duck. Many FBI agents are coordinating his take down. If that doesnt upset you, then wait to the tides turn and its a republican heavy FBI that takes down the next democrat president.
LOL, right.
- James Comey, a Republican, was head of the FBI until Donald Trump fired him. - Christopher A. Wray, a Republican, was confirmed as Comey's replacement in August 2017. - Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, a Republican, appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller. - Robert Mueller, a Republican, is conducting the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. - Donald Trump, POTUS, a Republican, supposedly wanted to fire Mueller last June (shortly after firing Comey) but was talked out of it.
Whatever it is that's motivating the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate the Russian connection to the 2016 election, it isn't partisan politics.
That's just misdirection from the people who are trying to help Donald Trump get away with Treason and keep Putin's Puppet in the White House.
None of what you have posted changes the fact that Donald Trump has been caught red handed committing treason and conspiring with Russia's criminal attacks on our election and democracy.
Look, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but whatever he allegedly did that was illegal, it wasn't treason -- for the simple reason that the US constitution is specific on what treason is: aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.
Montana did not pass a law or regulation. They stipulated a contractual condition for receiving state business.
If you and I negotiated a contract for a service that placed conditions on how I provided my service to others, that wouldn't be a law or regulation either.
Now, whether these contractual conditions are enforceable... well, go watch the courts, and don't forget the popcorn.
There is one important difference between the Cuban Missile Crisis and today. Kennedy and Khrushchev were talking to each other. Trump and Kim are not.
I've never understood this move. So he gets his 15 minutes of "fame" and then is quickly forgotten. Meanwhile, the board/committee now has one less voice to advance the cause he represented. How is this effective?
Apparently he felt his presence was giving the advisory committee an air of legitimacy that it did not deserve. So he quit. Makes sense to me.
Not that terrible summaries are anything new on Slashdot, but really. "Smallest unit of time greater than a nanosecond?"
Too lazy to do the math right now, but it appears what they have defined is the largest unit of time that divides the frame-periods they're talking about by integral amounts, so you can synchronize video in these different rates with an integral number of "flicks" for each of the different frame-periods.
That depends on what you mean by "do math." If you mean arithmetic and symbolic manipulation, then yes they can. In fact they're damn good at it.
But if you mean possessing a sentience with a motivation to seek out theorems and construct proofs for them, then not so much, but let's wait and see what AI brings us.
"Numerous" is not the best word to use here, because it implies countability. Rational numbers are countable, i.e., you can construct a 1-to-1 mapping with the integers, but any attempt to place the irrational numbers in a 1-to-1 mapping with the integers can be shown to have omitted at least one irrational number.
One can say that the set of rationals and the set of irrationals are both infinite, but the irrationals have a higher infinitude than the rationals. The curious reader should look up Transfinite Cardinals.
the "bounds" also have the same issue, it's making the problem smaller but not eliminating it
This. You'll still have error propagation as you combine numbers in mathematical calculations.
I haven't read the patent, but I don't see how they can get around that. The error on a calculation will grow into the more significant digits, even if you get fancy with the handling of the last digit's error.
It's easy to refute this claim. The bible is wrong since it's just a book written by people a long time ago.
No, that's not how you refute a claim. Just because something is old and written by people does not mean it is wrong. (Of course, that doesn't mean it's right either.)
pi = 3 is wrong because it is possible to calculate the ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle mathematically. And the answer is not 3.
Allow locals to do community broadband and design the networks needed.
What does that have to do with NN?
No more federal NN monopoly rules to hold back community broadband in a city, state.
NN does not restrict community broadband efforts. It restricts what the big players can do with traffic. And that just might include what the big players do with traffic that passes through, oh say, community broadband efforts.
No they don't. Not in the form of experiments and/or observations.
The key isn't evidence, it's falsifiability (which you'd understand if you read Popper).
I have read Karl Popper, thankyouverymuch.
You can't have falsifiable hypotheses without evidence as a starting point for making them, and an ending point for falsifying them. Even Einstein's gedanken experiments relied on well-known observations of nature.
It is the burden of proponents of a hypothesis to enumerate those observations which would falsify it -
Perhaps, but others have the privilege of attacking a hypothesis with any good faith argument. They are not limited to what the proponent lists as the criteria for defeat.
you simply cannot say "my hypothesis is confirmed by warmer winters" and also "my hypothesis is confirmed by colder winters". Specifically, you cannot have a hypothesis that is "perfectly defensible", and can make ad hoc excuses for any observations.
Okay, now I see you're being disingenuous, and trying to advance an anti-AGW agenda. Extremes of seasonal weather in the shorter term are not inconsistent with a general rising temperature trend in the longer term.
I can't be bothered responding to the rest of your post. Over and out.
I think I understand where you're going, but I think you're confusing definitions and fields.
In mathematics, truth and provability were shown to be distinct concepts, by Kurt Gödel (per his famous Incompleteness Theorem.) Specifically, that in certain logical systems, something can be true but not provable.
In science, the distinction is not as important. Science relies on the presence of evidence to support a theory, not a rigorous logical argument based on axioms. This speaks, in a way, to the different sense that scientists have about what it means to "prove" something, compared to mathematicians.
Short story: disprovability and falsifiability are essentially the same in science, but not in mathematics. And that takes nothing away from either field.
Evidence is not the key point of the scientific method. Neither is "overwhelming" evidence.
The trick is a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Specifically:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean a hypothesis is false; 2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that a hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
No, evidence most definitely is the key point of the scientific method. Everything in science collapses without evidence -- in the form of observations or experiments.
That's not to say that science is just about gathering evidence. Of course not -- it's also about trying to make sense of it. And you and I seem to agree that the part of science that involves hypotheses requires that they be stated in a way that makes them disprovable -- again, based on evidence to the contrary.
But as to your point (1): it is the privilege of opponents of a hypothesis to supply observations that indicate it is false (as long as they do so in good faith.) Note that I say privilege, not burden. The proponents of a hypothesis have the burden to defend it.
And your point (2): if we are to accept that a lack of falsifications means that a hypothesis survives the tests of its opponents (to correct what you really meant) then we accept that the falsification tests are complete. But of course, we must never assume they are. That is how science works. Every hypothesis survives as long as it has evidence to support it, and as long as nobody can think of a way to test it that makes it fail. Eventually, someone might think of such a way. And if they did, and I was the unfortunate defender of such a hypothesis, I'd be the first to toast their success.
Showing me the evidence of a million white swans doesn't overwhelmingly prove there are no black swans. Looking really hard for black swans, and failing to find them, is what a scientist would show as support for their hypothesis.
You discount the presence of white swans in your analogy. If there were only a few white swans observed and no black ones, then the evidence is weak that only white swans exist. But if millions of white swans are observed with no black swans showing up, that strengthens the hypothesis that there are no black swans. But if one single black swan is observed, then the whole game changes: black swans exist, it's then a matter of how often they occur.
The earth pulls at you because it has a lot of mass. But how can the earth influence your body, pull your feet to the ground, without actually touching you? Why is it that one thing (the earth) can influence something else (you) without actually being connected?
A famous analogy is a ball of modest mass (such as a soccer ball) held up by a stretched bedsheet, held firmly at both corners. The soccer ball dimples the bedsheet and induces a curvature around it. If you were to drop a smaller ball (such as a ball bearing) on the bedsheet, it would roll towards the soccer ball even though they don't touch each other. You could even get the smaller ball to "orbit" the larger one if you gave it just the right velocity in the right direction.
The bedsheet is like spacetime: the presence of mass causes it to curve in such a way that other masses in its vicinity tend to be drawn towards them. I think that may be as far as you want to go with a 9-year-old without looking up lessons on the internet.
Computer modeling has achieved many things for humanity. It has helped us to build bridges that can survive earthquakes, planes that don't fall out of the sky, space probes that can travel to distant planets with less fuel, sports arenas that can be evacuated quickly in an emergency, and so on. All of these efforts allowed the behavior of an object or system to be predicted in advance.
Other kinds of modeling are more difficult, but no less useful or important. Climate modeling is one such endeavor. And no good scientist uses a model to predict the future unless s/he has some confidence that it makes predictions with reasonable accuracy. Often that confidence is acquired by seeing whether the model can predict the past by using the more distant past.
It is foolish to dismiss a computer model just because it is a computer model.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, the fact that science deals in disprovable hypotheses should not be used to infer that science is somehow weak. Rather, it limits the kinds of questions that one can address with science.
When a scientist makes a claim that is backed up with evidence, another scientist must have a way to prove that it is wrong. For example, "God exists" is not a scientific statement because there is no way to prove that it is wrong.
That being said, there are many theories and laws in science that have such overwhelming evidence, collected over many years, that they are often sloppily referred to as "settled" even though they never really are. Thermodynamics is arguably the best example of this.
I think you forgot overhead. Aside from salary and benefits, it costs money to give an employee a desk and chair to sit in, a phone, a computer, people to manage the IT infrastructure, administer HR and payroll, run the AC and get the place cleaned, pay mortgage/rent/property tax on the building, and so on. Typically that can be anywhere from 50% to over 100% on top of an employee's salary.
That said, I still agree that the numbers appear to be suspiciously high.
I have studied a handful of languages and taught English. English is a train wreck to learn. It is extremely flexible and expressive but the grammar rules and spelling are the linguistic equivalent of the worst spaghetti code.
The Académie française ridiculed themselves big time with "mot diese". Not only is it a double "abus de langage" (the # symbol is not a musical sharp and a tag is not a word), but the word hash is already basically French, from "hachure", which means.., um... a crosshatch pattern.
I beg to differ. "mot dièse" (literally "word sharp") has an elegance that is lacking in "hashtag" or "hachure".
And # (as sharp) is kind of useful when you want to talk about Chopin's legendary Prelude no. 8 in F# minor.
I've never used the name French Toast either, we've always called it eggy bread, which is I believe the common English way to refer to it. In France I think they call it golden bread.
The French word for French Toast is pain perdu -- literally "lost bread" -- so-called because the custom is to make it with day-old bread. In fact, at restaurants where it is popular, people may come early because the restaurant has to use fresh bread if they run out of day-old.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not watch or listen to those. Purely the facts from the investigation. If it walks and talks like a duck, it must be a duck. Many FBI agents are coordinating his take down. If that doesnt upset you, then wait to the tides turn and its a republican heavy FBI that takes down the next democrat president.
LOL, right.
- James Comey, a Republican, was head of the FBI until Donald Trump fired him.
- Christopher A. Wray, a Republican, was confirmed as Comey's replacement in August 2017.
- Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, a Republican, appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
- Robert Mueller, a Republican, is conducting the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
- Donald Trump, POTUS, a Republican, supposedly wanted to fire Mueller last June (shortly after firing Comey) but was talked out of it.
Whatever it is that's motivating the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate the Russian connection to the 2016 election, it isn't partisan politics.
That's just misdirection from the people who are trying to help Donald Trump get away with Treason and keep Putin's Puppet in the White House.
None of what you have posted changes the fact that Donald Trump has been caught red handed committing treason and conspiring with Russia's criminal attacks on our election and democracy.
Look, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but whatever he allegedly did that was illegal, it wasn't treason -- for the simple reason that the US constitution is specific on what treason is: aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.
Montana did not pass a law or regulation. They stipulated a contractual condition for receiving state business.
If you and I negotiated a contract for a service that placed conditions on how I provided my service to others, that wouldn't be a law or regulation either.
Now, whether these contractual conditions are enforceable ... well, go watch the courts, and don't forget the popcorn.
There is one important difference between the Cuban Missile Crisis and today. Kennedy and Khrushchev were talking to each other. Trump and Kim are not.
I've never understood this move. So he gets his 15 minutes of "fame" and then is quickly forgotten. Meanwhile, the board/committee now has one less voice to advance the cause he represented. How is this effective?
Apparently he felt his presence was giving the advisory committee an air of legitimacy that it did not deserve. So he quit. Makes sense to me.
Shill detected
Detected? My shill-meter exploded when it scanned the GP post.
Not that terrible summaries are anything new on Slashdot, but really. "Smallest unit of time greater than a nanosecond?"
Too lazy to do the math right now, but it appears what they have defined is the largest unit of time that divides the frame-periods they're talking about by integral amounts, so you can synchronize video in these different rates with an integral number of "flicks" for each of the different frame-periods.
"to the last digit." Cool. I'd like a representation of pi, please.
8=========D
Wrong gender.
That depends on what you mean by "do math." If you mean arithmetic and symbolic manipulation, then yes they can. In fact they're damn good at it.
But if you mean possessing a sentience with a motivation to seek out theorems and construct proofs for them, then not so much, but let's wait and see what AI brings us.
"Numerous" is not the best word to use here, because it implies countability. Rational numbers are countable, i.e., you can construct a 1-to-1 mapping with the integers, but any attempt to place the irrational numbers in a 1-to-1 mapping with the integers can be shown to have omitted at least one irrational number.
One can say that the set of rationals and the set of irrationals are both infinite, but the irrationals have a higher infinitude than the rationals. The curious reader should look up Transfinite Cardinals.
the "bounds" also have the same issue, it's making the problem smaller but not eliminating it
This. You'll still have error propagation as you combine numbers in mathematical calculations.
I haven't read the patent, but I don't see how they can get around that. The error on a calculation will grow into the more significant digits, even if you get fancy with the handling of the last digit's error.
It's easy to refute this claim. The bible is wrong since it's just a book written by people a long time ago.
No, that's not how you refute a claim. Just because something is old and written by people does not mean it is wrong. (Of course, that doesn't mean it's right either.)
pi = 3 is wrong because it is possible to calculate the ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle mathematically. And the answer is not 3.
Allow locals to do community broadband and design the networks needed.
What does that have to do with NN?
No more federal NN monopoly rules to hold back community broadband in a city, state.
NN does not restrict community broadband efforts. It restricts what the big players can do with traffic. And that just might include what the big players do with traffic that passes through, oh say, community broadband efforts.
Astrology has evidence.
The bible has evidence.
No they don't. Not in the form of experiments and/or observations.
The key isn't evidence, it's falsifiability (which you'd understand if you read Popper).
I have read Karl Popper, thankyouverymuch.
You can't have falsifiable hypotheses without evidence as a starting point for making them, and an ending point for falsifying them. Even Einstein's gedanken experiments relied on well-known observations of nature.
It is the burden of proponents of a hypothesis to enumerate those observations which would falsify it -
Perhaps, but others have the privilege of attacking a hypothesis with any good faith argument. They are not limited to what the proponent lists as the criteria for defeat.
you simply cannot say "my hypothesis is confirmed by warmer winters" and also "my hypothesis is confirmed by colder winters". Specifically, you cannot have a hypothesis that is "perfectly defensible", and can make ad hoc excuses for any observations.
Okay, now I see you're being disingenuous, and trying to advance an anti-AGW agenda. Extremes of seasonal weather in the shorter term are not inconsistent with a general rising temperature trend in the longer term.
I can't be bothered responding to the rest of your post. Over and out.
I think I understand where you're going, but I think you're confusing definitions and fields.
In mathematics, truth and provability were shown to be distinct concepts, by Kurt Gödel (per his famous Incompleteness Theorem.) Specifically, that in certain logical systems, something can be true but not provable.
In science, the distinction is not as important. Science relies on the presence of evidence to support a theory, not a rigorous logical argument based on axioms. This speaks, in a way, to the different sense that scientists have about what it means to "prove" something, compared to mathematicians.
Short story: disprovability and falsifiability are essentially the same in science, but not in mathematics. And that takes nothing away from either field.
Evidence is not the key point of the scientific method. Neither is "overwhelming" evidence.
The trick is a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Specifically:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean a hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that a hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
No, evidence most definitely is the key point of the scientific method. Everything in science collapses without evidence -- in the form of observations or experiments.
That's not to say that science is just about gathering evidence. Of course not -- it's also about trying to make sense of it. And you and I seem to agree that the part of science that involves hypotheses requires that they be stated in a way that makes them disprovable -- again, based on evidence to the contrary.
But as to your point (1): it is the privilege of opponents of a hypothesis to supply observations that indicate it is false (as long as they do so in good faith.) Note that I say privilege, not burden. The proponents of a hypothesis have the burden to defend it.
And your point (2): if we are to accept that a lack of falsifications means that a hypothesis survives the tests of its opponents (to correct what you really meant) then we accept that the falsification tests are complete. But of course, we must never assume they are. That is how science works. Every hypothesis survives as long as it has evidence to support it, and as long as nobody can think of a way to test it that makes it fail. Eventually, someone might think of such a way. And if they did, and I was the unfortunate defender of such a hypothesis, I'd be the first to toast their success.
Showing me the evidence of a million white swans doesn't overwhelmingly prove there are no black swans. Looking really hard for black swans, and failing to find them, is what a scientist would show as support for their hypothesis.
You discount the presence of white swans in your analogy. If there were only a few white swans observed and no black ones, then the evidence is weak that only white swans exist. But if millions of white swans are observed with no black swans showing up, that strengthens the hypothesis that there are no black swans. But if one single black swan is observed, then the whole game changes: black swans exist, it's then a matter of how often they occur.
held firmly at both corners
Duh, at all four corners. Sorry.
The earth pulls at you because it has a lot of mass. But how can the earth influence your body, pull your feet to the ground, without actually touching you? Why is it that one thing (the earth) can influence something else (you) without actually being connected?
A famous analogy is a ball of modest mass (such as a soccer ball) held up by a stretched bedsheet, held firmly at both corners. The soccer ball dimples the bedsheet and induces a curvature around it. If you were to drop a smaller ball (such as a ball bearing) on the bedsheet, it would roll towards the soccer ball even though they don't touch each other. You could even get the smaller ball to "orbit" the larger one if you gave it just the right velocity in the right direction.
The bedsheet is like spacetime: the presence of mass causes it to curve in such a way that other masses in its vicinity tend to be drawn towards them. I think that may be as far as you want to go with a 9-year-old without looking up lessons on the internet.
Computer modeling has achieved many things for humanity. It has helped us to build bridges that can survive earthquakes, planes that don't fall out of the sky, space probes that can travel to distant planets with less fuel, sports arenas that can be evacuated quickly in an emergency, and so on. All of these efforts allowed the behavior of an object or system to be predicted in advance.
Other kinds of modeling are more difficult, but no less useful or important. Climate modeling is one such endeavor. And no good scientist uses a model to predict the future unless s/he has some confidence that it makes predictions with reasonable accuracy. Often that confidence is acquired by seeing whether the model can predict the past by using the more distant past.
It is foolish to dismiss a computer model just because it is a computer model.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, the fact that science deals in disprovable hypotheses should not be used to infer that science is somehow weak. Rather, it limits the kinds of questions that one can address with science.
When a scientist makes a claim that is backed up with evidence, another scientist must have a way to prove that it is wrong. For example, "God exists" is not a scientific statement because there is no way to prove that it is wrong.
That being said, there are many theories and laws in science that have such overwhelming evidence, collected over many years, that they are often sloppily referred to as "settled" even though they never really are. Thermodynamics is arguably the best example of this.
I think you forgot overhead. Aside from salary and benefits, it costs money to give an employee a desk and chair to sit in, a phone, a computer, people to manage the IT infrastructure, administer HR and payroll, run the AC and get the place cleaned, pay mortgage/rent/property tax on the building, and so on. Typically that can be anywhere from 50% to over 100% on top of an employee's salary.
That said, I still agree that the numbers appear to be suspiciously high.
This was an executive order, rules change only. No legal basis for them to challenge - since there is no law there in the first place.
And the lawsuit filed by the 22 AGs is ... well, a lawsuit, not a prosecution pertaining to some law.
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
I have studied a handful of languages and taught English. English is a train wreck to learn.
It is extremely flexible and expressive but the grammar rules and spelling are the linguistic equivalent of the worst spaghetti code.
And let's not even mention pronunciation.
The Académie française ridiculed themselves big time with "mot diese". Not only is it a double "abus de langage" (the # symbol is not a musical sharp and a tag is not a word), but the word hash is already basically French, from "hachure", which means .., um ... a crosshatch pattern.
I beg to differ. "mot dièse" (literally "word sharp") has an elegance that is lacking in "hashtag" or "hachure".
And # (as sharp) is kind of useful when you want to talk about Chopin's legendary Prelude no. 8 in F# minor.
I've never used the name French Toast either, we've always called it eggy bread, which is I believe the common English way to refer to it. In France I think they call it golden bread.
The French word for French Toast is pain perdu -- literally "lost bread" -- so-called because the custom is to make it with day-old bread. In fact, at restaurants where it is popular, people may come early because the restaurant has to use fresh bread if they run out of day-old.