And some of it was just complete fantasy-land, like the cute girl wanted to hang out with the class nerd while he played a computer game in his bedroom. I ask you.
Indeed. Reality would be if the cute girl kicked his ass in Global War. Turns out those cute girls can be vicious little killers.
The science part of this process is not the imagination part, not the theorizing.
That's what I said. Your empirical testing leads you to formulate principles which eliminate entire classes of things that are even imagined as things worth trying. The understanding that having waved a chicken and a hamster you do not have to try waving a water buffalo.
Because you know. So you go on to injecting things into cells before you waste your testing life waving everything you can find over your patients. You have to try a lot of things and make a lot of errors, but each error reduces the number of things you need to try in a nonlinear progression.
It's the careful empirical testing that distinguishes successful science from mere philosophizing.
That's why I get insulted when people introduce me as a philosopher. It's only philosophers who have to try everything, because they know nothing; and thus they rely on their imaginations for solutions.
Once upon a time Feynman was at a party and chatting with a philospher about some latest discovery of science. At one point the philosopher said, "I knew that already."
Feynman replied, "No you didn't. You believed it. I proved it."
Curing the common cold, as well as being a great source of comfort to mankind and even saving a few lives, would mean some major advances in virology and cellular biology. I believe I will devote the rest of my life to finding the cure.
As a theoretician; do think I would be better off starting my research by waving a chicken over my patients, or a hamster?
Bingo. In fact most of the cancer research that is going isn't going on because there is any real science behind it, or any real science coming out of it, but only because the money is there and can only be spent on cancer research. Lots of lab techs doing busy work collectiong redundant data.
Now data is valuable. You can't do science without it. The first American to win a Nobel Prize won it for increasing the accuracy of lightspeed measuring equipment. Without Brahe there would have been no Kepler, without Kepler there would have been no Newton.
But 10,000 Keplers gathering planetary position data wouldn't have gotten us to Newton any faster. The key point was simply the idea to gather data and set Kepler to gathering it. One Kepler was sufficient for the job. 10,000 Keplers would have generated denser data, perhaps with slightly better precision, but wouldn't have gotten us to Kepler's deductions any faster. Those were in the data.
Maxwell gave us the data and the resultant principles deduced from them to bring us from Newton the Einstein. It took 40 years to get there. Hiring 10,000 physicists to sit in a room staring at Maxwell's equations wouldn't have gotten us to Relativity any faster. All the physicists (and a good many of the engineers) in the world were already doing that. And they hacked out what it meant.
There are fields that take massive amounts of money to do any real science, just because of the cost of the test equipment. High energy physics comes to mind, but fields like this are actually rather rare.
We have generated an army of "scientists," and at the same time a publish or perish "science" culture. Most of the work done these days isn't really done because someone had a cool idea. It's done because they need to protect their paycheck and to do that they have do something, whether there's anything behind that something or not. Then they ad hoc justify their work, so they get another paycheck, so they need to do something else, so they. . .
This isn't science. It's busy work. I doubt there are more than a few thousand real scientists in the world today; and most of them are watching bugs.
Wait, didn't the space program produce some science?
Some, yes, but not very much. This is one of the key criticisms against the money spent on it.
Apollo?
Engineering and human achievment. Hillary accomplished much the same.
Hubble?
Lotta data. Some of it has had some real scientific implications, much of it has not. Data is like that.
Mars rovers?
Lotta data.
I mean I can kinda see your point here but launching a Saturn V takes more than a few thousand to the right person at the right time.
Launching a rocket, however, does not. There is no more science in a large rocket than a small one. The majority of rocket science isn't science at all. Regenerating all the limbs lost in a war will require a large medical infrastructure staffed by many people at great expense, but this is not science. Figuring out how to regenerate a limb is science, and only requires one person with the right idea.
Science is not implimentation. Science is principle.
Or just a few thousands to just the right person at just the right time.
Money is pretty good at creating data and sorta good at creating engineering, but it's never been shown to be very good at producing science, accept by accident.
See Fleming's discovery of penicillin vs. the godzillions spent looking for a cure for cancer.
Needless to say as much as I would have liked to help from a technical standpoint I learned EVEN I can excersise caution when it comes to men in black suits paying me a visit....
And this is why "security" kills more innocent people than the terrorists ever will, not to mention raising questions about who the real source of terror is.
Wow, imagine that. For a company to make money, it costs consumers money.
If I have two hundred and fifty dollars and I exchange it for an older violin worth two hundred and fifty dollars, I have a violin that can be resold for two hundred and fifty dollars, or maybe a hundred if I'm in a hurt, five hundred is am not.
I have exchanged my money for real wealth. Maybe even made an investment.
If I have two hundred and fifty dollars and exchange it for Vista, I: Go hungry.
Well, ok, that's a trade, not really consumption (the violin will be handed down to my grandkids, not consumed. Well cared for they can last hundreds of years).
So, If I have two hundred and fifty dollars I can buy two months worth of food: life itself. Although a consumable, real wealth.
If I have two hundred and fifty dollars I can buy Vista and: Go hungry.
Are you beginning to get the idea? I'm not concerned with Microsoft's ability to make a profit, I'm concerned with my ability to accumulate wealth.
The idea behind a business transaction is that both parties should come away feeling satisfied that what they gave up was no more valuable than what they recieved in exchange for it. Maybe even both parties can legitimately feel they came out ahead, due to oversupply/scarcity ratios.
Windows will have an oversupply of Vista (indeed) and shortage of money (they will not). I will have a shortage of Vista (I will not) and an oversupply of money (I will not).
So where do I benefit from the deal? Where does Microsoft suffer if I do not give them my money?
If your argument is only supported by an intentional act on your part then you lose.
It is not. There are actually people who offer shitty brakes for sale to the public, just as there are people who offer shitty operating systems and software applications.
Hell, you may well own shitty brakes yourself, completely unaware of the chatter causing longer than necessary stopping distances and premature lockup, not even mentioning the tendency to fail catastorophically only six months down the road (see how I didn't mention it?), all covered up from your awareness by bad design and outright slop in manufacturing, masking what's really going on from your nervous system by covering it over with sensory noise. Funny thing is, there is a correlation between price and quality, but no correlation between price and junk. Good shit'll cost you more because it's more expensive to make than junk. Junk will cost you anything the manufacturer/marketer (not at all always the same entity. Can you say "Netgear"? I knew ya could) can sucker you into paying for it.
Although odds are your brakes are just shitty because they're cheap. For God's sake, in your next life put some money into your brakes, rather than your upolstery and fake carbon fiber dash trim ( and just what the hell is the world coming to when you can buy fake synthetic materials?)
Just because I understand how brakes do, and do not, work; and can thus modify perfectly good brakes to work like crap, does not imply that perfectly crappy brakes cannot be obtained out of the box, for otherwise good money.
It's like arguing that clean drinking water is bad for you because you can put someone in concrete over-shoes and chuck them in and they'll drown.
Except for the fact that I'm arguing drinking quality vs. drinking quality. You should have brought up heavy metal content or something like that. Otherwise you're likely to look like you're accussing me of erecting a strawman by erecting a strawman.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone explain to me how that applies to Digital Cameras pixal density.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera.htm
KFG
Adding an animated cartoon is supposed to be the 'next generation AI'?
Indeed, and the technology seems to be progressing nicely. He's been able to develop his bald, bespectacled man into a hot chick.
KFG
Last time I checked, one needed a licence to broadcast on the FM frequencies.
Last time I checked one needed only a transmitter.
KFG
And some of it was just complete fantasy-land, like the cute girl wanted to hang out with the class nerd while he played a computer game in his bedroom. I ask you.
Indeed. Reality would be if the cute girl kicked his ass in Global War. Turns out those cute girls can be vicious little killers.
KFG
At least Libertarians won't toss you into gaol. Some might even strike up a conversation, or try to, with and tip you.
And that is why, although I am not aligned with their party (or any other party for that matter) I tend to vote for Libertarian candidates.
KFG
The science part of this process is not the imagination part, not the theorizing.
That's what I said. Your empirical testing leads you to formulate principles which eliminate entire classes of things that are even imagined as things worth trying. The understanding that having waved a chicken and a hamster you do not have to try waving a water buffalo.
Because you know. So you go on to injecting things into cells before you waste your testing life waving everything you can find over your patients. You have to try a lot of things and make a lot of errors, but each error reduces the number of things you need to try in a nonlinear progression.
It's the careful empirical testing that distinguishes successful science from mere philosophizing.
That's why I get insulted when people introduce me as a philosopher. It's only philosophers who have to try everything, because they know nothing; and thus they rely on their imaginations for solutions.
Once upon a time Feynman was at a party and chatting with a philospher about some latest discovery of science. At one point the philosopher said, "I knew that already."
Feynman replied, "No you didn't. You believed it. I proved it."
KFG
You might want to wait for the second model year. There's still some question about whether they're just selling cat oil or not.
KFG
You can only get spayed or neutered animals from them.
Time to fire up the Mr. Cloner.
KFG
Either you're a troll, or you have zero sense of satire.
Must be a troll then.
KFG
But they'll pay for my harmonica lessons -- whether I want them or not.
If the Republicans win I'll be shot as a suspected terrorist and my violin will be destroyed as a WMD.
If the Libertarians win I'll be sitting on the sidewalk with my fiddle and a tin cup; oh, wait. . .
That's what I'm doing now.
KFG
Curing the common cold, as well as being a great source of comfort to mankind and even saving a few lives, would mean some major advances in virology and cellular biology. I believe I will devote the rest of my life to finding the cure.
As a theoretician; do think I would be better off starting my research by waving a chicken over my patients, or a hamster?
KFG
Bingo. In fact most of the cancer research that is going isn't going on because there is any real science behind it, or any real science coming out of it, but only because the money is there and can only be spent on cancer research. Lots of lab techs doing busy work collectiong redundant data.
Now data is valuable. You can't do science without it. The first American to win a Nobel Prize won it for increasing the accuracy of lightspeed measuring equipment. Without Brahe there would have been no Kepler, without Kepler there would have been no Newton.
But 10,000 Keplers gathering planetary position data wouldn't have gotten us to Newton any faster. The key point was simply the idea to gather data and set Kepler to gathering it. One Kepler was sufficient for the job. 10,000 Keplers would have generated denser data, perhaps with slightly better precision, but wouldn't have gotten us to Kepler's deductions any faster. Those were in the data.
Maxwell gave us the data and the resultant principles deduced from them to bring us from Newton the Einstein. It took 40 years to get there. Hiring 10,000 physicists to sit in a room staring at Maxwell's equations wouldn't have gotten us to Relativity any faster. All the physicists (and a good many of the engineers) in the world were already doing that. And they hacked out what it meant.
There are fields that take massive amounts of money to do any real science, just because of the cost of the test equipment. High energy physics comes to mind, but fields like this are actually rather rare.
We have generated an army of "scientists," and at the same time a publish or perish "science" culture. Most of the work done these days isn't really done because someone had a cool idea. It's done because they need to protect their paycheck and to do that they have do something, whether there's anything behind that something or not. Then they ad hoc justify their work, so they get another paycheck, so they need to do something else, so they. . .
This isn't science. It's busy work. I doubt there are more than a few thousand real scientists in the world today; and most of them are watching bugs.
KFG
science is, by and large, a process of finding what works by systematically trying everything that doesn't work first.
No. Science is about discovering principles so you do not have to try everything that doesn't work first.
KFG
Wait, didn't the space program produce some science?
Some, yes, but not very much. This is one of the key criticisms against the money spent on it.
Apollo?
Engineering and human achievment. Hillary accomplished much the same.
Hubble?
Lotta data. Some of it has had some real scientific implications, much of it has not. Data is like that.
Mars rovers?
Lotta data.
I mean I can kinda see your point here but launching a Saturn V takes more than a few thousand to the right person at the right time.
Launching a rocket, however, does not. There is no more science in a large rocket than a small one. The majority of rocket science isn't science at all. Regenerating all the limbs lost in a war will require a large medical infrastructure staffed by many people at great expense, but this is not science. Figuring out how to regenerate a limb is science, and only requires one person with the right idea.
Science is not implimentation. Science is principle.
KFG
. . . portrays explicit bias and diminishes any credibility slashdot has as a top tech site.
.?
And . .
KFG
All we hear about is the aggregate number of casualties.
One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic. -Joseph Stalin.
KFG
. . .they don't get to choose their fights. The President does that.
Washington, we have a problem.
KFG
And isnt a rat pretty close to a human?
Only if he's a lawyer.
KFG
Or just a few thousands to just the right person at just the right time.
Money is pretty good at creating data and sorta good at creating engineering, but it's never been shown to be very good at producing science, accept by accident.
See Fleming's discovery of penicillin vs. the godzillions spent looking for a cure for cancer.
KFG
If they can give soldiers the ability to grow amputated limbs, any possibility this technology can be used to produce 100% real enlarged breasts?
Yes, but don't be surprised if people look at you funny -- or maybe that should be funnier.
KFG
Needless to say as much as I would have liked to help from a technical standpoint I learned EVEN I can excersise caution when it comes to men in black suits paying me a visit....
And this is why "security" kills more innocent people than the terrorists ever will, not to mention raising questions about who the real source of terror is.
KFG
Wow, imagine that. For a company to make money, it costs consumers money.
If I have two hundred and fifty dollars and I exchange it for an older violin worth two hundred and fifty dollars, I have a violin that can be resold for two hundred and fifty dollars, or maybe a hundred if I'm in a hurt, five hundred is am not.
I have exchanged my money for real wealth. Maybe even made an investment.
If I have two hundred and fifty dollars and exchange it for Vista, I: Go hungry.
Well, ok, that's a trade, not really consumption (the violin will be handed down to my grandkids, not consumed. Well cared for they can last hundreds of years).
So, If I have two hundred and fifty dollars I can buy two months worth of food: life itself. Although a consumable, real wealth.
If I have two hundred and fifty dollars I can buy Vista and: Go hungry.
Are you beginning to get the idea? I'm not concerned with Microsoft's ability to make a profit, I'm concerned with my ability to accumulate wealth.
The idea behind a business transaction is that both parties should come away feeling satisfied that what they gave up was no more valuable than what they recieved in exchange for it. Maybe even both parties can legitimately feel they came out ahead, due to oversupply/scarcity ratios.
Windows will have an oversupply of Vista (indeed) and shortage of money (they will not). I will have a shortage of Vista (I will not) and an oversupply of money (I will not).
So where do I benefit from the deal? Where does Microsoft suffer if I do not give them my money?
They can bite me. I'm buyin' a fiddle.
KFG
For that, it uses an algorithm to compute a hash that can uniquely identify an album so that its metadata can be returned. . .
.from a human readable textfile of the metadata.
. .
KFG
Besides, the ability to prove that any given match isn't a flase positive is only a big deal if you. . .
.are the falsely accused.
. .
KFG
If your argument is only supported by an intentional act on your part then you lose.
It is not. There are actually people who offer shitty brakes for sale to the public, just as there are people who offer shitty operating systems and software applications.
Hell, you may well own shitty brakes yourself, completely unaware of the chatter causing longer than necessary stopping distances and premature lockup, not even mentioning the tendency to fail catastorophically only six months down the road (see how I didn't mention it?), all covered up from your awareness by bad design and outright slop in manufacturing, masking what's really going on from your nervous system by covering it over with sensory noise. Funny thing is, there is a correlation between price and quality, but no correlation between price and junk. Good shit'll cost you more because it's more expensive to make than junk. Junk will cost you anything the manufacturer/marketer (not at all always the same entity. Can you say "Netgear"? I knew ya could) can sucker you into paying for it.
Although odds are your brakes are just shitty because they're cheap. For God's sake, in your next life put some money into your brakes, rather than your upolstery and fake carbon fiber dash trim ( and just what the hell is the world coming to when you can buy fake synthetic materials?)
Just because I understand how brakes do, and do not, work; and can thus modify perfectly good brakes to work like crap, does not imply that perfectly crappy brakes cannot be obtained out of the box, for otherwise good money.
It's like arguing that clean drinking water is bad for you because you can put someone in concrete over-shoes and chuck them in and they'll drown.
Except for the fact that I'm arguing drinking quality vs. drinking quality. You should have brought up heavy metal content or something like that. Otherwise you're likely to look like you're accussing me of erecting a strawman by erecting a strawman.
KFG