No, you don't, you arrogant [censored]. This is a very interesting hypothesis, that, if confirmed, could have a big impact on the future of cancer research. You know, not all scientific publications have to contain thorough empirical confirmations of proposed hypotheses -- science would advance much slower if this were the case.
An interesting perspective. I was personally extremely troubled by the much higher [claimed] incidence of cheating in math/sci/engineering students, since I really want to believe that those kids are capable of becoming good and honest contributors to their respective fields. But your hypothesis does make a lot of sense, and I can only hope that you're right about the cheating occurring mostly in classes that are of little relevance to their future occupations. Even in that case, I'm not happy about it -- there's a moral barrier that is broken when one cheats, even if only a little, that I think makes it easier to cheat later on (yes, yes, a slippery slope argument; I think it applies in this case). Still though, I really hope you're right.
Are you one of those people who think C isn't a turing-complete programming language just because its grammar is context-free? Think about your argument again, and try to pose it in a less hand-wavy way. You may find it to be impossible pretty quickly.
1) turn it off if it bothers you. 2) "->" is not the same as "=>". you misinterpreted GP. 3) would everyone please stop jumping on the "google sucks now" bandwagon? it's getting annoying.
Uhhh, the United States doesn't pay a penny for education of foreign nationals, private donors do. For undergraduate education, scholarship funds come exclusively from private universities and philanthropists. For graduate education, costs are paid for from departmental funds/the student's advisor's funds. The latter two may partially come from government grants, but you can't interpret this as the US government paying for the students' education, since graduate students are considered to pay for themselves with their vital contributions to research.
Well, AFAIK, you're in the minority. I think most people do in fact move their mouse with their gaze, because it cuts the delay between when they decide to click on something and when they actually click on it. Think of it as a pre-loading or caching technique -- you don't pay much cost for moving your mouse around a little bit, but you can save time. At least that's my hypothesis.
Irrelevant; if there is any set of genes that influence the probability of an individual being religious, through whatever mechanism, his assumption is valid.
Do you have any idea how science works? You start with whatever assumptions you need to make to get a [any] result. Then you keep relaxing the assumptions until you can support them empirically. I don't know if it should have made the front page or not, but your baseless dismissiveness is insulting.
more people will grow up in religious households than not; but that I see as a good thing, as it will decrease the overall fear of religion from people who don't have much direct experience with it
HAH! Funny. Let me ask you this -- think about the last time you've seen someone who's terrified of at least one religion. Was that person afraid because they were atheist and had had no exposure to religion, or because they were in fact religious and were threatened by the differences between their own religion and the other[s]?
Oh, also, this. Your hypothesis is flawed in pretty much every possible way.
No, you think you remember. Human episodic memory is extremely shitty, which is especially bad considering its high reputation (see: innocent people going to jail because witnesses couldn't help but remember the perp as a 6' black man).
It's probably a very crude device, where they attach the speaker/vibrator wires directly to a detonator... Anything more sophisticated/selective would probably require more expensive equipment. I'm sure cost is of at least some concern to them.
Of course they are. Nash equilibrium, dude -- remember that "they" don't act according to a single will, they compete with each other. It's a "tragedy of the commons" situation, where "they" will suck "us" dry until there's nothing left to suck, and then everything will collapse. Though that's probably not so bad for "them" -- I'm sure Shanghai ain't such a bad place to live, if you have the money.
The only question is: why to whistle blowers go to Wikileaks instead of NYT?
Hypothesis: because they don't trust traditional media in the US anymore (see above comment about lack of balls). Hypothesis 2: the novelty factor of Wikileaks is attractive to some, without any logical reason.
There are a lot of not-so-smart people with degrees.
Claim: Statistically speaking, the difference in intelligence between those with and without college degrees is large. Do you deny this claim? Because if not, your statement quoted above seems meaningless.
I don't know enough about it to think I know better than the vast majority of climate scientists
The problem is, people are people; every group is prone to corruption. When incentives exist to be dishonest, some will become dishonest -- scientists aren't exempt from this. This is why I tend to be extremely skeptical of the consensus in any scientific field that has been politicized as much as climatology is. This is also why sensationalist science reporting pisses me off so much -- it often leads to the creation of excessive public interest in a scientific field, which in turn creates the opportunity for dishonest "scientists" to profit through outright lies and/or bad science.
America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.
Except for this tiny little thing called AI/robotics that is soon (inevitably) going to change the world, where he US leads by miles. The Japanese and Koreans have awesome hardware, but they ain't doing much in software.
Heh, yeah, the invention/discovery of mathematics and computer science has brought no value to society. Except, well, it made pretty much everything else possible...
Slashdot Mirror
I make up a dozen theories like this per day.
No, you don't, you arrogant [censored]. This is a very interesting hypothesis, that, if confirmed, could have a big impact on the future of cancer research. You know, not all scientific publications have to contain thorough empirical confirmations of proposed hypotheses -- science would advance much slower if this were the case.
In summary, what the hell is your point?
An interesting perspective. I was personally extremely troubled by the much higher [claimed] incidence of cheating in math/sci/engineering students, since I really want to believe that those kids are capable of becoming good and honest contributors to their respective fields. But your hypothesis does make a lot of sense, and I can only hope that you're right about the cheating occurring mostly in classes that are of little relevance to their future occupations. Even in that case, I'm not happy about it -- there's a moral barrier that is broken when one cheats, even if only a little, that I think makes it easier to cheat later on (yes, yes, a slippery slope argument; I think it applies in this case). Still though, I really hope you're right.
one word: clusterfuck
Are you one of those people who think C isn't a turing-complete programming language just because its grammar is context-free? Think about your argument again, and try to pose it in a less hand-wavy way. You may find it to be impossible pretty quickly.
but that video almost made me cry. It's just... Ah, forget it.
unfortunately their results are in no way scientifically meaningful, since they used statistical techniques that cannot guarantee consistency...
1) turn it off if it bothers you. 2) "->" is not the same as "=>". you misinterpreted GP. 3) would everyone please stop jumping on the "google sucks now" bandwagon? it's getting annoying.
Uhhh, the United States doesn't pay a penny for education of foreign nationals, private donors do. For undergraduate education, scholarship funds come exclusively from private universities and philanthropists. For graduate education, costs are paid for from departmental funds/the student's advisor's funds. The latter two may partially come from government grants, but you can't interpret this as the US government paying for the students' education, since graduate students are considered to pay for themselves with their vital contributions to research.
Well, AFAIK, you're in the minority. I think most people do in fact move their mouse with their gaze, because it cuts the delay between when they decide to click on something and when they actually click on it. Think of it as a pre-loading or caching technique -- you don't pay much cost for moving your mouse around a little bit, but you can save time. At least that's my hypothesis.
Irrelevant; if there is any set of genes that influence the probability of an individual being religious, through whatever mechanism, his assumption is valid.
Do you have any idea how science works? You start with whatever assumptions you need to make to get a [any] result. Then you keep relaxing the assumptions until you can support them empirically. I don't know if it should have made the front page or not, but your baseless dismissiveness is insulting.
more people will grow up in religious households than not; but that I see as a good thing, as it will decrease the overall fear of religion from people who don't have much direct experience with it
HAH! Funny. Let me ask you this -- think about the last time you've seen someone who's terrified of at least one religion. Was that person afraid because they were atheist and had had no exposure to religion, or because they were in fact religious and were threatened by the differences between their own religion and the other[s]?
Oh, also, this. Your hypothesis is flawed in pretty much every possible way.
No, you think you remember. Human episodic memory is extremely shitty, which is especially bad considering its high reputation (see: innocent people going to jail because witnesses couldn't help but remember the perp as a 6' black man).
It's probably a very crude device, where they attach the speaker/vibrator wires directly to a detonator... Anything more sophisticated/selective would probably require more expensive equipment. I'm sure cost is of at least some concern to them.
Of course they are. Nash equilibrium, dude -- remember that "they" don't act according to a single will, they compete with each other. It's a "tragedy of the commons" situation, where "they" will suck "us" dry until there's nothing left to suck, and then everything will collapse. Though that's probably not so bad for "them" -- I'm sure Shanghai ain't such a bad place to live, if you have the money.
The only question is: why to whistle blowers go to Wikileaks instead of NYT?
Hypothesis: because they don't trust traditional media in the US anymore (see above comment about lack of balls). Hypothesis 2: the novelty factor of Wikileaks is attractive to some, without any logical reason.
There are a lot of not-so-smart people with degrees.
Claim: Statistically speaking, the difference in intelligence between those with and without college degrees is large. Do you deny this claim? Because if not, your statement quoted above seems meaningless.
I don't know enough about it to think I know better than the vast majority of climate scientists
The problem is, people are people; every group is prone to corruption. When incentives exist to be dishonest, some will become dishonest -- scientists aren't exempt from this. This is why I tend to be extremely skeptical of the consensus in any scientific field that has been politicized as much as climatology is. This is also why sensationalist science reporting pisses me off so much -- it often leads to the creation of excessive public interest in a scientific field, which in turn creates the opportunity for dishonest "scientists" to profit through outright lies and/or bad science.
Whoosh, or are you just reciprocating with a joke?
So that poor donor can't talk anymore?? SO cruel! How can this be legal???
I get the Pope and Dalai Lama part, but more admired than Beck?? That's just wrong!
s/rape/prostitution/g
America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.
Except for this tiny little thing called AI/robotics that is soon (inevitably) going to change the world, where he US leads by miles. The Japanese and Koreans have awesome hardware, but they ain't doing much in software.
bring value to society
Heh, yeah, the invention/discovery of mathematics and computer science has brought no value to society. Except, well, it made pretty much everything else possible...
Sorry. (I have no idea what "Xfce" is...)