Your phrase "so likely as to lie beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt" seems to be exaggerated to me. Perhaps you'd like to expand on it. What it suggests to me (limiting process between number of positive trials and truth) is probably not what you meant.
My friend put that arguement to me to warn against the search for absolute proof based on empirical results in science. I'd be very surprised myself, if historically philosphers of science hadn't looked down this avenue before. Its one of those things that seems quite intuitive, the more we can repeat something the more likely it is to be true, but won't fit on logical foundations.
Scientists aren't fools; they understand a theory as an interpretation of evidence, and consciously use the word "true" as a brief way of saying "so likely as to lie beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt." This understanding is the basis of the scientific method and is essential for success in academia (even though silly politics are too).
On the contary, true is shorthand for nobody has produced a repeatable experiment showing it is false. Any attempt to measure how probable a "truth" is based on experiment fails because the finite number of times you did the experiment divided by the infinite number of times you could do it gives zero.
Someone more versed in philosophy could tell you who first came up with this argument, and how later philosphers have tried to answer it (I think Kant was in one of these groups, but it was a long time ago that my philospher friend floated this stuff past me.)
I think the biggest problem I suffered was driving on the right in GTA VC, and then having to revert to the left when back behind the wheel of a real car. Lucky I live in a quiet estate.
There is no option to set the http proxy from epiphany directly. If you are using GNOME, however, there is a system wide setting under Applications->Desktop Preferences->Network Proxy. Its kind of like having a HTTP_PROXY environment variable.
So people without client side scripting are all hackers? Strive to be nice with the server side validation as well, although I could understand this being one of the last places you'd want to invest programmer effort.
Middle click is great most of the time. But I've picked up a habit of copy text from one location, and attempting to replace text in another. Of course this means that I highlight the second piece of text before replacing it.
I realise there is should be real difference in effort between
highlight, copy, highlight, paste
highlight, middle click, highlight, delete
But, the middle click moves the text I want to delete, so I have to locate it again.
Thats theoretical power. I'd be surprised if it was actually wieldable - If the queen said jump to the Canadian military and they said no, is she really going to ask our military to invade? I'm pretty sure they'll say no as well. But then I'm surprised at a fair few things in politics and diplomacy, so who is to say...
In the first three months he wrote a page, in the next month and a half he wrote another page, in the next (scratching of head) three quarters of a month he wrote another page, and so on. Now after six months he has written an endless amount of stuff, simple (yet amazing) really.
Agricultural Surplus: good (although is the US a net importer of agriculture?)
Freedom: good
Accountability: mainly good, high profile exceptions
Transparency: pretty good, although we don't know what we don't know
Rule of Law: pretty good, the occasional riot and serial killer
Strong independent institutions: Poor, far too much seems to hang off the bipartisan political system.
Democracy: Good at state level, country wide republic is slightly less representitive.
UK
Agricultural Surplus: good, definitely a net importer (see the rationing during WWII)
Freedom: good, if you like getting your photo taken
Accountability: The civil service allegedly make a career out of avoiding this.
Transparency: improving but weak.
Rule of Law: pretty good, the occasional racially motivated flashpoint.
Strong independent institutions: Good, civil service and judiciary have history of independence
Democracy: Reasonable, bizarrely we are labelled a consitutional monarchy, which AFAICT means we have no constitution and the monarch has no practical power. There are other posts (e.g. US style sheriffs) that could be elected.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I guess the measure of loose coupling would be in the quality of interface each component exposes through DCOP. And as you say, that has nothing to do with integration. My apologies.
Can you prove that you can divide states up this way, subject to the each district containing the same number of voters restriction?
Thinking about it, you can. Pick a point in the middle of the state, draw radial lines out, move as necessary, continuity gets you there, although you may have to decide where people living on the lines have to vote.
You need to be careful with your definition of convex, because state boundaries aren't if you view them as embedded in Euclidean space. I guess you just say the state is the space.
From 15 years ago in the UK, the only experiments I recall watching on video were anything moderately explosive. Like dropping the higher atomic number alkali metals in water. The videos, of course, starred beard and pipe smoking stereotype scientists. I think, we were allowed to experiment with sodium, the teacher demonstrated potassium and everything higher was on the video.
Like one of the parent posters, we did stuff like shooting the monkey. We also had one aged chemistry teacher who loved doing the experiment where you burn off hydrogen from a pierced can, until you get the right mix of oxygen and it explodes.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had this from my isp since 1996. I get myuser.myisp.co.uk, and myuser@myisp.co.uk. This is in the UK though.
Your phrase "so likely as to lie beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt" seems to be exaggerated to me. Perhaps you'd like to expand on it. What it suggests to me (limiting process between number of positive trials and truth) is probably not what you meant.
My friend put that arguement to me to warn against the search for absolute proof based on empirical results in science. I'd be very surprised myself, if historically philosphers of science hadn't looked down this avenue before. Its one of those things that seems quite intuitive, the more we can repeat something the more likely it is to be true, but won't fit on logical foundations.
Scientists aren't fools; they understand a theory as an interpretation of evidence, and consciously use the word "true" as a brief way of saying "so likely as to lie beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt." This understanding is the basis of the scientific method and is essential for success in academia (even though silly politics are too).
On the contary, true is shorthand for nobody has produced a repeatable experiment showing it is false. Any attempt to measure how probable a "truth" is based on experiment fails because the finite number of times you did the experiment divided by the infinite number of times you could do it gives zero.
Someone more versed in philosophy could tell you who first came up with this argument, and how later philosphers have tried to answer it (I think Kant was in one of these groups, but it was a long time ago that my philospher friend floated this stuff past me.)
Shirky has some interesting things to say about this.
You mean that was like the first post on slashdot ever? And that moderators are well balanced rational people (you are honest!).
I think the biggest problem I suffered was driving on the right in GTA VC, and then having to revert to the left when back behind the wheel of a real car. Lucky I live in a quiet estate.
Your email address is the destination. The source should be stopped with a heavy blunt instrument.
There is no option to set the http proxy from epiphany directly. If you are using GNOME, however, there is a system wide setting under Applications->Desktop Preferences->Network Proxy. Its kind of like having a HTTP_PROXY environment variable.
So people without client side scripting are all hackers? Strive to be nice with the server side validation as well, although I could understand this being one of the last places you'd want to invest programmer effort.
To complete your analogy, you also need to point out that there are only three houses in the world.
I just dredged this article by Jamie Zawinski from my memory. Its informative about cut and paste under X.
Middle click is great most of the time. But I've picked up a habit of copy text from one location, and attempting to replace text in another. Of course this means that I highlight the second piece of text before replacing it.
I realise there is should be real difference in effort between
But, the middle click moves the text I want to delete, so I have to locate it again.
Thats theoretical power. I'd be surprised if it was actually wieldable - If the queen said jump to the Canadian military and they said no, is she really going to ask our military to invade? I'm pretty sure they'll say no as well. But then I'm surprised at a fair few things in politics and diplomacy, so who is to say...
In the first three months he wrote a page, in the next month and a half he wrote another page, in the next (scratching of head) three quarters of a month he wrote another page, and so on. Now after six months he has written an endless amount of stuff, simple (yet amazing) really.
USA
UK
I think pterodactlys might have something to say about that. Well if they could talk and were still alive today.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I guess the measure of loose coupling would be in the quality of interface each component exposes through DCOP. And as you say, that has nothing to do with integration. My apologies.
Tight Integration bad, loose integration good, mkay.
Can you prove that you can divide states up this way, subject to the each district containing the same number of voters restriction?
Thinking about it, you can. Pick a point in the middle of the state, draw radial lines out, move as necessary, continuity gets you there, although you may have to decide where people living on the lines have to vote.
You need to be careful with your definition of convex, because state boundaries aren't if you view them as embedded in Euclidean space. I guess you just say the state is the space.
From 15 years ago in the UK, the only experiments I recall watching on video were anything moderately explosive. Like dropping the higher atomic number alkali metals in water. The videos, of course, starred beard and pipe smoking stereotype scientists. I think, we were allowed to experiment with sodium, the teacher demonstrated potassium and everything higher was on the video.
Like one of the parent posters, we did stuff like shooting the monkey. We also had one aged chemistry teacher who loved doing the experiment where you burn off hydrogen from a pierced can, until you get the right mix of oxygen and it explodes.
What if one candidate got 100% of the vote? Meaningless boundary case I guess.
I fear you would run out of history before he does, but by all means serve it up, I'm entertained by the whole thread.
Maybe you'd be interested in The Maths Gene, by Keith Devlin. The ISBN is 0-297-64571-4.
I thought that too, until my one year old nephew visited, and showed me Boohbah
Unfortunately, the engineers, when posed with that requirement, assumed it was in hexadecimal.