Albert Einstein said "I never commit to memory anything that can be easily looked up in a book", yet decades later we still have not caught up to that ideal in our schools. Students can Google any fact, can Wolfram any equation, can Wiki any question. Critical thinking and genuine problem solving, along with finding and assimilating information are the skills that matter today. Unfortunately those skills are too difficult to test on multiple choice standardized tests, so our system stays stuck in it's obsolete state. The teachers will continue to prepare students for the government exams by teaching to the test. Our schools have become a sorting mechanism (a poor one at that) and have lost nearly all traces of meaningful education.
i suppose the graphologists willsoon bee reporting their findings on how the choice of font type,font size,use of bold and italics,the use of i instead of I and dozens of other typing choice we make tells us all sorts thing about a person's personality which we could use for counseling,crime investigationand recruitment purposes...
I see a whole new field of pseudoscience just waiting to be brought to the forefront of public imagination by a CSI episode.
Typology and typography are already taken, what shall we call this new science?
Has anyone even checked if a dead brain can still have flows of energy through its brain? I mean light patterns still reach the retinas, and can still trigger signals, depending on the state of the neurons there.
fMRI measures changes in blood flow in the brain, not some mystical flow of energy. The fish's heart was not beating, thus there was no blood flow, thus the voxels were just noise.
This peer review hereby dismisses your post due to faulty assumption.
I had to do a lab analyzing the estrous cycle of rats. I can assure you they do fart, and they don't seem the least bit embarrassed by their public flatulence.
Others have studied the rats gaseous emissions directly.
Replacing all our internal combustion engines with electric is a tail-pipe dream. We will not all be driving Volts and Teslas in the future, to produce millions of vehicles each with a couple hundred kilograms of Lithium batteries, or even NiMH batteries would be as unsustainable as our use of fossil fuels.
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf
You can't have angles on a shape without also having sides.
But you could have three angles and three sides without connecting the three sides to make a triangle. Though this would not prove the negative of a proposition like, "Not (all triangles have three sides)."
To prove the negative of "Not (all triangles have three sides)." You would just have to show a triangle that does have three sides. Most three year olds can do that.
Though the scrap of wisdom that Doofus was likely trying to convey might have been something more like:
You really can't prove the negative of a propostition like "all triangle have three sides"
Or perhaps the intention was more like "you really can't prove "NOT(all triangles have three sides)"
Though this still represents a misunderstanding of some scrap of wisdom. One definition of a triangle is "In Euclidean geometry any three non-collinear points determine a unique triangle", therefore a triangle does not need to have any sides, it may consist of three points where the points are not actually connected.
In a classical world you would be correct. The universe would be a recipe unfolding and Laplace could rest easy. (Sorry, couldn't resist comparing your delicious post to 19th century physics.)
However the Quantum Eraser Experiment shows that the experimenter can determine the outcome of the experiment after the event being measured has occurred.
Can you decide whether you will get cake or pancakes after the food is done cooking?
When you consider Young's Double Slit experiment, and how the wave function collapses when you measure which aperture the photon travels through, it does seems like the way we conduct our experiments can cause new phenomena to appear.
Does science discover properties that have always been there, or does the discovery of a "new property" bring that property into existence?
The photon (or electron if you choose) is both a wave and a particle until the design of the experiment forces the photon into one of the two possibilities. The photon then "chooses" whether it will have the properties of a wave or of a particle.
What is the relationship between the experimenter, and the experiment, and the rest of the universe?
Slashdot Mirror
Being hit on the head by a plank length could be empirical proof that getting hit on the head sometimes hurts.
Albert Einstein said "I never commit to memory anything that can be easily looked up in a book", yet decades later we still have not caught up to that ideal in our schools. Students can Google any fact, can Wolfram any equation, can Wiki any question. Critical thinking and genuine problem solving, along with finding and assimilating information are the skills that matter today. Unfortunately those skills are too difficult to test on multiple choice standardized tests, so our system stays stuck in it's obsolete state. The teachers will continue to prepare students for the government exams by teaching to the test. Our schools have become a sorting mechanism (a poor one at that) and have lost nearly all traces of meaningful education.
i suppose the graphologists willsoon bee reporting their findings on how the choice of font type,font size,use of bold and italics,the use of i instead of I and dozens of other typing choice we make tells us all sorts thing about a person's personality which we could use for counseling,crime investigationand recruitment purposes...
I see a whole new field of pseudoscience just waiting to be brought to the forefront of public imagination by a CSI episode.
Typology and typography are already taken, what shall we call this new science?
Has anyone even checked if a dead brain can still have flows of energy through its brain? I mean light patterns still reach the retinas, and can still trigger signals, depending on the state of the neurons there.
fMRI measures changes in blood flow in the brain, not some mystical flow of energy. The fish's heart was not beating, thus there was no blood flow, thus the voxels were just noise.
This peer review hereby dismisses your post due to faulty assumption.
actually 3 phase power can be 120V, 208V, or 240V in North America. http://www.3phasepower.org/
Others have studied the rats gaseous emissions directly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/845703
Replacing all our internal combustion engines with electric is a tail-pipe dream. We will not all be driving Volts and Teslas in the future, to produce millions of vehicles each with a couple hundred kilograms of Lithium batteries, or even NiMH batteries would be as unsustainable as our use of fossil fuels. http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf
But "angle" means, well, "angle", not side.
You can't have angles on a shape without also having sides.
But you could have three angles and three sides without connecting the three sides to make a triangle. Though this would not prove the negative of a proposition like, "Not (all triangles have three sides)."
To prove the negative of "Not (all triangles have three sides)." You would just have to show a triangle that does have three sides. Most three year olds can do that.
Though the scrap of wisdom that Doofus was likely trying to convey might have been something more like: You really can't prove the negative of a propostition like "all triangle have three sides"
Or perhaps the intention was more like "you really can't prove "NOT(all triangles have three sides)"
Though this still represents a misunderstanding of some scrap of wisdom. One definition of a triangle is "In Euclidean geometry any three non-collinear points determine a unique triangle", therefore a triangle does not need to have any sides, it may consist of three points where the points are not actually connected.
If only there was a little blue pill for Karma.
In a classical world you would be correct. The universe would be a recipe unfolding and Laplace could rest easy. (Sorry, couldn't resist comparing your delicious post to 19th century physics.) However the Quantum Eraser Experiment shows that the experimenter can determine the outcome of the experiment after the event being measured has occurred. Can you decide whether you will get cake or pancakes after the food is done cooking?
When you consider Young's Double Slit experiment, and how the wave function collapses when you measure which aperture the photon travels through, it does seems like the way we conduct our experiments can cause new phenomena to appear. Does science discover properties that have always been there, or does the discovery of a "new property" bring that property into existence? The photon (or electron if you choose) is both a wave and a particle until the design of the experiment forces the photon into one of the two possibilities. The photon then "chooses" whether it will have the properties of a wave or of a particle. What is the relationship between the experimenter, and the experiment, and the rest of the universe?