But there are GPS systems that will beep if it detects you break the speed limit. Nobody seems to oppose those systems?
*raises hand*... I do. The ability to have my movements and speed monitored are the primary reason I never have, and never will have, GPS implanted in my car. For that matter, I also turn the GPS radios off in my cell phones unless I am going on a hike alone or something similar.
Well, one good place to start would be ensuring that corporate interests don't completely conquer and assimilate current forms of media (internet, social networks and such). If we can keep parts of, or even the mass majority of these forms of communication open and free, then time will help to remove the amount of sway that social interest entities and corporations have over folks' minds.
Ah but that's the catch isn't it? I have to jailbreak and hack the damn thing together myself? God forbid a company actually make something be useful out of the freakin' box.
So, Slashdot...what information are you divulging to our government overlords?;)
Hopefully some of our government overlords are starting to get the message that I detest them and, thus, their ego-conscience will kick in and make them reform their ways. Of course, the odds of that are about the same as the odds of my riding a unicorn to work tomorrow....but a man can dream can't he?
And what about imaginary friends? I know I am a lot more prone to responding to imaginary friends more than real friends. If I don't respond to the imaginary friends, the yelling inside my head starts to make things hurt and I get scared. Now, please excuse me while I go "grocery shopping" like the voices of my imaginary friends are telling me to.....
Well that sure as hell explains the flamewars present on slashdot. 'Dotters are too scared to leave Mom's basement to make close friends. All of the opinions and facts posted by others with shared interests (tech and science) must be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism followed by an abundant helping of piss-ranting. Huzzah! =D
You know what I would personally like to see? I would love to see some kind of touch screen tablet computing pad (something like the iPad, or Galaxy tablet, or whatever) that had a mathematics and scientific data centric focus. It would be sweet to see a product like that hit the market. I would want it to come preloaded with a good data and simulation language (something like Matlab/Simulink or Scilab/XCOS). I would want it to come preloaded with some handy mathematical functions typically found in TI calculators (matrix operations, statistics plotting, solving of symbolic integrals and derivatives). Hell, if it had WiFi access even better. For bonus points add on an uber unit conversion program with a very clean simple interface.
I don't know, maybe something like this already exists, but if it does I haven't heard about it. If any 'dotters know of one, I would love to see a link. I would happily fork over some cash for a small computing platform like this that I could carry around in my back pocket (I don't want to have to find a way to strap another satchel to my body when riding my motorcycle). Finally, making it truly rugged and badass and able to survive getting dropped in water and sand would be great. Why won't a company develop an engineer/scientist specific tablet that could be used in a multitude of environments. It would be the ultimate geek multi-tool!
That's just like how spammers come in and clog up the data channel for other text only services right now as well, right? I mean, nobody can even use e-mail anymore because of spammers. Oh wait...
Somehow ISPs and web-based e-mail companies have managed to attack the spam problem pretty effectively while still keeping their e-mail services free. In fact, the companies that have found the best solutions to filtering spam are enjoying dominant places in the e-mail market, probably in part because of their superior spam-blocking techniques (Gmail).
So, while it appears that spam can be handled perfectly without a per-send/receive fee in other technologies, the phone companies are only capable of defeating the problem by charging, what is it now? $0.20 per text to each customer. Yep, that sounds like a perfectly legitimate, non-shyster solution to me.
Maybe I am missing something, but why doesn't the FCC go after the roots of some of these problems. For instance, can someone please explain to me why in the hell we are being charged for text messages in the first place? I mean, other than to screw us over and make a pretty penny?
Yeah, the plastics on some of the crotch rockets would help in obscuring this type of thing. But if you do even basic maintenance on your bike. you'd probably be pulling those plastics off at least once every 6 months or so. Again, I would think a motorcycle owner would know enough about his/her bike to know when there is something under the plastic doesn't belong. Anyways, I've always preferred the near-naked and bare-naked frame bikes. =)
It could just be that whoever raised the greyhound as a pup never took the proper time to train it. In my experience, while some dogs are more easily trained than others, just about any dog can be taught basic social skills and behaviors, if you will. The primary obstacle to a decent basic training often seems to be the owner itself, lacking the will-power and discipline to actually teach their dog anything. A lot of owners just don't seem to know how to say, "No," in a stern enough tone for the dog to pick up on the meaning. Couple that with the complete inability of some folks to hold eye-contact with their own pooch and it becomes pretty apparent why many dogs misbehave.
Here is one other advantage of using a motorcycle as your primary means of transportation. It's a lot harder to hide anything on a motorcycle than it is to hide something on a car.
I have ten bucks that says the breed most likely to be pessimistic was the Basset hound. Meanwhile, the happiest dogs were probably Collies or, perhaps, Poodles. Next I'd like to see a study that shows that cats really are condescending bastards. =)
Well, that's probably true to some extent. However, I'm not really even hoping to get folks to read Kierkegaard in lieu of Glen Beck. Rather, I'd like to see more responsible attempts by various content delivery mediums (TV, internet sites, radio, and so forth) to actually educate and intrigue people rather than whipping them into a frothing mad frenzy.
Most of the folks that I know who get wound up over sensational political rantings do so because they are genuinely interested in learning more about politics. They simply lack the direction or understanding of how or where to find better educational materials on the subject. The reason I say this is because most of those folk who like to watch something like Glenn Beck also like to watch shows on the Discovery channel about theoretical physics and and evolution and such.
The reason they flock to shows like Glenn Beck's and Bill O'Reilly's and others is because those are the most talked about, common knowledge, easily found sources of information on the topic of politics. Similarly, shows like "The Universe" or "Earth" on the Discovery channel are the most talked about shows regarding such educational topics. Hence the same folks watch those shows with the actual intent of learning something.
That's why I bemoan the state of a lot of media in this world (not all, but a lot). I think there are quite a few people out there who generally want to learn about political philosophy and economics and civics and such, but simply lack the direction and understanding of where to find good material on these subjects. The added negative to this situation is that, when such folks watch something like Fox news or MSNBC for a long time, they start to adopt that stupid, "them vs. us" mentality that gets displayed so brashly on those stations. Thus, when you try to tell those folks of new places to find info. they are already infused with a bias because they are wary of the "liberal elite media," or the "faux news conservative-insane rhetoric."
I really think there could be a good market for a TV channel that, basically, tried to do with politics and philosophy what the Discovery channel and Nat. Geo. try to do with science.
If you impose a lot of rules, monitor every little thing that your child does, then all they will do is find a way around whatever blocks / rules you have in place...
The unintended consequence of this, and, dare I say, hidden advantage of it, is that such measures create generations of kids that are good at hacking their way out of oppressive measures whom have little respect for authority. In a world where governments seem to see their role, increasingly, as using any and all means (including technology) at their disposal to trample on human rights, this combination of skills and attitude will be a valuable weapon in the hands of the citizenry.
I've never had the motivation to put someone on my 'foes' list on Slashdot before. This however, has come very close to changing that. I will have this god-awful rubbish stuck in my head all day thanks to you. Now please excuse me while I try to get it out of my brain using a belt sander and a turkey baster....
It will help because you can't claim that you've debunked another scientist's analysis until both analyses are appropriately filtered for possible human error, which, if I recall correctly, is the single most common cause if false conclusions in the scientific world.
It would be false to say that your conclusion causes the ball to hit the ground, but it would not be false to say that the impact time of the ball is predetermined. It is predetermined by the laws of physics, which is the only reason you can calculate and guess (successfully) when the ball will strike the ground. If you guessed an impact time and you were wrong, the error would be in your calculation and in your knowledge of the environment's influence on the ball. The ball's impact time would still have been predetermined due to the laws of physics. Your counter example does not apply because the impact time of the ball, is, in fact, a predetermined event. If it is supposed to, therefore, be analogous to the individual's choice of X, then all you have demonstrated is that the choice X is still predetermined, but the observer's knowledge is flawed (which, according to my axiom 1, is impossible in the sample space that I set up).
To phrase things another way, I am not saying that God's knowledge causes an individual's choice. I am saying that, in my sample reality, if logic is to be maintained, then the sheer existence of an observer that has knowledge of all things, means that the state of the system is already determined (including the individual's choice) before the choice is even made. Thus, by definition of choice, there is no real choice being made and free will does not exist.
In other words, I am not arguing that God's knowledge is causing choice X to occur. I am arguing that, since God knows choice X will occur, and by Axiom 2, God is always right, then choice X has to occur no matter what input the individual making the choice brings to the system. Choice X has to be the final state of things because God knows that choice X is the final state of things (this follows from the all knowing axiom). Since choice X must be the final state of things, the individual has no control over the choice, and, thus, has no free will.
There is no logical inconsistency in my argument. Your analogy, however, is flawed.
Well it looks like the U.S. astronomers used two sets of data gathered from different time periods for their analysis. Meanwhile, the Swiss astronomers used a third set of data gathered over a different time period for their analysis. I would think the first thing that should be done would be to swap data sets. Have the U.S. astronomers run their analysis on the Swiss data set with their tools, and have the Swiss astronomers run their analysis on the U.S. data sets with their tools. After all is said and done, compare the results yielded by each data set. If only the U.S. astronomers are finding the gravitational wiggles, then it means that either their tools are inducing some kind of experimental error, or the Swiss tools are missing some critical component. At which point the tools and methods between the two groups should be compared and contrasted to observe differences.
If, however, U.S. analysis of the Swiss data sets similarly yields a no planet result, and Swiss analysis of U.S. data sets yields a planet exists result, then you can conclude that the problem is in the data, and not the analysis being done. So, the moral of the story to both teams is to send their data to each other. For bonus points, both parties can publish all of their data so that a few third parties can conduct their own analysis. This is what science is all about after all folks!
Well, yeah, that was the point I was trying to get at. As for who cares, well, I do to some extent. I don't piddle around with a lot of media sources nowadays because, well, I have better hobbies. However, I do live in a society where a lot of folk will watch their favorite news station, or listen to their favorite radio station, or whatever. Then they go on to preach like zealous idiots on the main street of my town, or, worse, vote some D-bag into office that deserves a bullet more than a paycheck. So yeah, as a personal need, I am not really worried about media. With regards to the effect that it has on my society, I certainly do care. I don't like to see my otherwise intelligent neighbors and friends successfully trolled and flambaited by some idiot on TV or on the radio.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are GPS systems that will beep if it detects you break the speed limit. Nobody seems to oppose those systems?
*raises hand* ... I do. The ability to have my movements and speed monitored are the primary reason I never have, and never will have, GPS implanted in my car. For that matter, I also turn the GPS radios off in my cell phones unless I am going on a hike alone or something similar.
Well, one good place to start would be ensuring that corporate interests don't completely conquer and assimilate current forms of media (internet, social networks and such). If we can keep parts of, or even the mass majority of these forms of communication open and free, then time will help to remove the amount of sway that social interest entities and corporations have over folks' minds.
Ah but that's the catch isn't it? I have to jailbreak and hack the damn thing together myself? God forbid a company actually make something be useful out of the freakin' box.
So, Slashdot...what information are you divulging to our government overlords? ;)
Hopefully some of our government overlords are starting to get the message that I detest them and, thus, their ego-conscience will kick in and make them reform their ways. Of course, the odds of that are about the same as the odds of my riding a unicorn to work tomorrow....but a man can dream can't he?
And what about imaginary friends? I know I am a lot more prone to responding to imaginary friends more than real friends. If I don't respond to the imaginary friends, the yelling inside my head starts to make things hurt and I get scared. Now, please excuse me while I go "grocery shopping" like the voices of my imaginary friends are telling me to.....
Well that sure as hell explains the flamewars present on slashdot. 'Dotters are too scared to leave Mom's basement to make close friends. All of the opinions and facts posted by others with shared interests (tech and science) must be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism followed by an abundant helping of piss-ranting. Huzzah! =D
You know what I would personally like to see? I would love to see some kind of touch screen tablet computing pad (something like the iPad, or Galaxy tablet, or whatever) that had a mathematics and scientific data centric focus. It would be sweet to see a product like that hit the market. I would want it to come preloaded with a good data and simulation language (something like Matlab/Simulink or Scilab/XCOS). I would want it to come preloaded with some handy mathematical functions typically found in TI calculators (matrix operations, statistics plotting, solving of symbolic integrals and derivatives). Hell, if it had WiFi access even better. For bonus points add on an uber unit conversion program with a very clean simple interface.
I don't know, maybe something like this already exists, but if it does I haven't heard about it. If any 'dotters know of one, I would love to see a link. I would happily fork over some cash for a small computing platform like this that I could carry around in my back pocket (I don't want to have to find a way to strap another satchel to my body when riding my motorcycle). Finally, making it truly rugged and badass and able to survive getting dropped in water and sand would be great. Why won't a company develop an engineer/scientist specific tablet that could be used in a multitude of environments. It would be the ultimate geek multi-tool!
I'd rather see the government mandate a fee against people that make stupid, nonequivalent analogies.
That's just like how spammers come in and clog up the data channel for other text only services right now as well, right? I mean, nobody can even use e-mail anymore because of spammers. Oh wait...
Somehow ISPs and web-based e-mail companies have managed to attack the spam problem pretty effectively while still keeping their e-mail services free. In fact, the companies that have found the best solutions to filtering spam are enjoying dominant places in the e-mail market, probably in part because of their superior spam-blocking techniques (Gmail).
So, while it appears that spam can be handled perfectly without a per-send/receive fee in other technologies, the phone companies are only capable of defeating the problem by charging, what is it now? $0.20 per text to each customer. Yep, that sounds like a perfectly legitimate, non-shyster solution to me.
Maybe I am missing something, but why doesn't the FCC go after the roots of some of these problems. For instance, can someone please explain to me why in the hell we are being charged for text messages in the first place? I mean, other than to screw us over and make a pretty penny?
Yeah, the plastics on some of the crotch rockets would help in obscuring this type of thing. But if you do even basic maintenance on your bike. you'd probably be pulling those plastics off at least once every 6 months or so. Again, I would think a motorcycle owner would know enough about his/her bike to know when there is something under the plastic doesn't belong. Anyways, I've always preferred the near-naked and bare-naked frame bikes. =)
Motorcycle, bicycle, it's really the same thing. Mine just has a more powerful motor. =P
It could just be that whoever raised the greyhound as a pup never took the proper time to train it. In my experience, while some dogs are more easily trained than others, just about any dog can be taught basic social skills and behaviors, if you will. The primary obstacle to a decent basic training often seems to be the owner itself, lacking the will-power and discipline to actually teach their dog anything. A lot of owners just don't seem to know how to say, "No," in a stern enough tone for the dog to pick up on the meaning. Couple that with the complete inability of some folks to hold eye-contact with their own pooch and it becomes pretty apparent why many dogs misbehave.
Here is one other advantage of using a motorcycle as your primary means of transportation. It's a lot harder to hide anything on a motorcycle than it is to hide something on a car.
I have ten bucks that says the breed most likely to be pessimistic was the Basset hound. Meanwhile, the happiest dogs were probably Collies or, perhaps, Poodles. Next I'd like to see a study that shows that cats really are condescending bastards. =)
No worries. We all post erroneous stuff from time to time. That's a big part of what being human is all about. =D
Well, that's probably true to some extent. However, I'm not really even hoping to get folks to read Kierkegaard in lieu of Glen Beck. Rather, I'd like to see more responsible attempts by various content delivery mediums (TV, internet sites, radio, and so forth) to actually educate and intrigue people rather than whipping them into a frothing mad frenzy.
Most of the folks that I know who get wound up over sensational political rantings do so because they are genuinely interested in learning more about politics. They simply lack the direction or understanding of how or where to find better educational materials on the subject. The reason I say this is because most of those folk who like to watch something like Glenn Beck also like to watch shows on the Discovery channel about theoretical physics and and evolution and such.
The reason they flock to shows like Glenn Beck's and Bill O'Reilly's and others is because those are the most talked about, common knowledge, easily found sources of information on the topic of politics. Similarly, shows like "The Universe" or "Earth" on the Discovery channel are the most talked about shows regarding such educational topics. Hence the same folks watch those shows with the actual intent of learning something.
That's why I bemoan the state of a lot of media in this world (not all, but a lot). I think there are quite a few people out there who generally want to learn about political philosophy and economics and civics and such, but simply lack the direction and understanding of where to find good material on these subjects. The added negative to this situation is that, when such folks watch something like Fox news or MSNBC for a long time, they start to adopt that stupid, "them vs. us" mentality that gets displayed so brashly on those stations. Thus, when you try to tell those folks of new places to find info. they are already infused with a bias because they are wary of the "liberal elite media," or the "faux news conservative-insane rhetoric."
I really think there could be a good market for a TV channel that, basically, tried to do with politics and philosophy what the Discovery channel and Nat. Geo. try to do with science.
If you impose a lot of rules, monitor every little thing that your child does, then all they will do is find a way around whatever blocks / rules you have in place...
The unintended consequence of this, and, dare I say, hidden advantage of it, is that such measures create generations of kids that are good at hacking their way out of oppressive measures whom have little respect for authority. In a world where governments seem to see their role, increasingly, as using any and all means (including technology) at their disposal to trample on human rights, this combination of skills and attitude will be a valuable weapon in the hands of the citizenry.
I've never had the motivation to put someone on my 'foes' list on Slashdot before. This however, has come very close to changing that. I will have this god-awful rubbish stuck in my head all day thanks to you. Now please excuse me while I try to get it out of my brain using a belt sander and a turkey baster....
We really don't have the time or patience to deal with you until then.
Apparently you do. =P
It will help because you can't claim that you've debunked another scientist's analysis until both analyses are appropriately filtered for possible human error, which, if I recall correctly, is the single most common cause if false conclusions in the scientific world.
It would be false to say that your conclusion causes the ball to hit the ground, but it would not be false to say that the impact time of the ball is predetermined. It is predetermined by the laws of physics, which is the only reason you can calculate and guess (successfully) when the ball will strike the ground. If you guessed an impact time and you were wrong, the error would be in your calculation and in your knowledge of the environment's influence on the ball. The ball's impact time would still have been predetermined due to the laws of physics. Your counter example does not apply because the impact time of the ball, is, in fact, a predetermined event. If it is supposed to, therefore, be analogous to the individual's choice of X, then all you have demonstrated is that the choice X is still predetermined, but the observer's knowledge is flawed (which, according to my axiom 1, is impossible in the sample space that I set up).
To phrase things another way, I am not saying that God's knowledge causes an individual's choice. I am saying that, in my sample reality, if logic is to be maintained, then the sheer existence of an observer that has knowledge of all things, means that the state of the system is already determined (including the individual's choice) before the choice is even made. Thus, by definition of choice, there is no real choice being made and free will does not exist.
In other words, I am not arguing that God's knowledge is causing choice X to occur. I am arguing that, since God knows choice X will occur, and by Axiom 2, God is always right, then choice X has to occur no matter what input the individual making the choice brings to the system. Choice X has to be the final state of things because God knows that choice X is the final state of things (this follows from the all knowing axiom). Since choice X must be the final state of things, the individual has no control over the choice, and, thus, has no free will.
There is no logical inconsistency in my argument. Your analogy, however, is flawed.
Well it looks like the U.S. astronomers used two sets of data gathered from different time periods for their analysis. Meanwhile, the Swiss astronomers used a third set of data gathered over a different time period for their analysis. I would think the first thing that should be done would be to swap data sets. Have the U.S. astronomers run their analysis on the Swiss data set with their tools, and have the Swiss astronomers run their analysis on the U.S. data sets with their tools. After all is said and done, compare the results yielded by each data set. If only the U.S. astronomers are finding the gravitational wiggles, then it means that either their tools are inducing some kind of experimental error, or the Swiss tools are missing some critical component. At which point the tools and methods between the two groups should be compared and contrasted to observe differences.
If, however, U.S. analysis of the Swiss data sets similarly yields a no planet result, and Swiss analysis of U.S. data sets yields a planet exists result, then you can conclude that the problem is in the data, and not the analysis being done. So, the moral of the story to both teams is to send their data to each other. For bonus points, both parties can publish all of their data so that a few third parties can conduct their own analysis. This is what science is all about after all folks!
Well, yeah, that was the point I was trying to get at. As for who cares, well, I do to some extent. I don't piddle around with a lot of media sources nowadays because, well, I have better hobbies. However, I do live in a society where a lot of folk will watch their favorite news station, or listen to their favorite radio station, or whatever. Then they go on to preach like zealous idiots on the main street of my town, or, worse, vote some D-bag into office that deserves a bullet more than a paycheck. So yeah, as a personal need, I am not really worried about media. With regards to the effect that it has on my society, I certainly do care. I don't like to see my otherwise intelligent neighbors and friends successfully trolled and flambaited by some idiot on TV or on the radio.
...the best way seems to fly it around the moon then straight to Earth.
That's what they are talking about doing. The slashdot summary is glib, and thus, unclear. FTFA:
This vehicle would then likely return straight to Earth, rather than returning to the ISS.