No. That may or may not be the current game market, but I stopped buying games when I stopped being able to install them and play them without depending on a remote site for activation and access.
I was willing to put up with the abusive license terms that I wouldn't accept on software that I used for work, because I counted game a optional extra. I was not willing to accept "We got tired of that game" or "Oops, we're out of business" as a reason for my game to stop working.
So they killed a part of the gaming industry when they started requiring on-line access to the gamer's computer. And for my part it can just stay dead until they drop dead. (Yes, a few games that I liked died before I wised up.)
Sorry, I've got to disagree. There's more actual news than could possibly be streamed. Now if you require that the news be exciting and interesting, then you might have a point. But, e.g., the basket ball scores for the Fargo, Dakota https://scorestream.com/explor... never get reported on the news channel. Neither did the interesting thing my niece did on here birthday.
So it's what they decided to sell, it's not that there wasn't enough news.
No. The reason is that while young nut jobs tend to be on the left, older nut jobs tend to be on the right. It's a bit difficult to be precise here, but I think the crossover point is a bit over 28 years old. So when the bulge of the population was young, most of the nut jobs were on the left, but as it has aged more of them have moved to the right.
Of course, part of the problem with this is that the left-right dichotomy is an artificial simplification, and whether a belief is called left or right often depends on how those who don't accept it describe it. And they will be prejudiced differently than those that do accept it. Whoops!
If I'd bothered to learn and use Tex, I wouldn't have needed to. But HTML was quicker, Netscape had a decent HTML editor. So I never bothered to. I still haven't.
This was around 1997-98, so we're talking about the same period. Perhaps we were doing different things with the text.
Well...there's also the question of exactly WHAT will get implemented. Just because we're told that a regulation will do something we desire doesn't mean it won't do a lot of things we don't desire, even if it actually does do what we desire. I don't know the SHAKEN/STIR framework, and I certainly haven't analyzed how it works, or in what ways it could be manipulated.
Well, I read the MS EULA, and switched to Apple. A few years later Apple revised their EULA (in an essential security update!). I switched to Linux even though it didn't have a decent word processor at the time. (Well, there was tex, but LaTex was broken, and AbiWord wasn't sufficient.) I ended up doing word processing in HTML and putting page numbers on by hand. But it was better than agreeing to those EULAs.
If you have been following the argument, it requires BOTH relativity and quantum theory to explain why those muons were detected where they were.
And I also disagree with your first paragraph. Read my prior post, as you don't seem to have read it before. A fact is not a theory, and conversely. A theory is an explanation for a fact. It may or may not be the correct explanation, and the theory that explains any particular fact will almost(?) always need to be a union of less specialized theories (plus a few rules of inference). Theories are (well, often are) the interface between math and observation. So one has the EGW Multi-world theory that is an explanation (interpretation) of the observations that justify quantum physics. But in that particular case (as often) several different mappings from the observations into human mental processes are possible. In this particular case the different mappings are generally called different interpretations. They all use the same physical phenomena (observations) as their starting point, and in this case they use exactly the same math to describe the observations. Then they interpret the math in different ways. But the interpretation is not allowed to alter either the observations or the math.
He wrote several things that have survived as books. But I sort of doubt I would consider them books in their original form. To quote Wikipedia:
Writers in the Hellenistic-Roman culture wrote longer texts as scrolls; these were stored in boxes or shelving with small cubbyholes, similar to a modern winerack. Court records and notes were written on wax tablets, while important documents were written on papyrus or parchment. The modern English word book comes from the Proto-Germanic *bokiz, referring to the beechwood on which early written works were recorded.
The question is "How does one become a skilled and effective debater?", and that's not necessarily strongly correlated with intelligence. It is, however, strongly correlated with instruction and practice in debating. And for getting that, high end schools are nearly the only training ground.
And even that's nearly irrelevant, because this particular individual was chosen because he was a top level debater. That he went to Cambridge and Oxford is part of his history. Perhaps he could have gone to Podunk High School, and ended up being a top debater, but that didn't happen. (And one can guess many reasons why that didn't happen, but that would require other sources of information.)
I would strongly suspect that being from a wealthy family was also an implicit requirement, because usually debating teams need to finance their own travel expenses. But I could easily be wrong on this guess. (I just don't think I am. However the financing could be indirect. It could be included in the tuition for the high end schools.)
The Roman you are thinking of was probably Cicero. He founded a school of rhetoric which specialized in winning arguments. He wasn't really interested in whether the argument was valid, only in whether it would sway the audience.
I'm not sure that he wrote a book I rather doubt it. But he wrote numerous articles on his "art", and I'd be surprised if someone didn't gather them together into a book and say it was by Cicero. (He was famous enough that few would have the gall to claim to be the author of one of his papers. [He was also a lawyer with a strong record of winning cases.])
The fact is the observation of the muon. Relativity is the explanation used to explain it. One is a fact, the other is a theory. Facts can never be refuted. Explanations of facts ("a small epileptic attack caused the UFO siting") can (at least in principle) be shown to be incorrect. They can never be shown to be correct.
No. Nobody knowledgeable would assert that Relativity is correct. Just that every prediction that it has made that we have checked is correct.
The problem is that Quantum Theory has a track record at least as good as Relativity, and they disagree about predictions for some things we can't check. So one of them has to be wrong.
OTOH, they are both extremely, extremely, extremely good theories. They've both been checked in a huge number of instances, and they've both passed every check. They are both used in building really delicate and complex gadgets, and they work fine. But at least one of them is wrong.
OTOH, there are problem that need explanation. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are both labels for things that have never been seen or detected, and we don't know why, or what they are. Some of the effects they are used to explain can be put down to the asymmetrical distribution of matter, but how much is too difficult to calculate...however it sure doesn't look like that can explain it all. Every theorized candidate for "Dark Matter" has failed to show up where experimenters were hoping to find it.
When the theory says "If you see this effect, then it can be explained by something with these characteristics in that location" it sounds good. But if the characteristics aren't something you can directly detect, then it's a lot iffier.
Because we know there's something wrong, people keep building alternative theories. But these theories have to make an ungodly number of exactly correct predictions to rate serious consideration. And they need to predict something sufficiently different from the current theory which is both correct, and reasonably testable. Also, when people spend a lot of time on any particular theory, they tend to become invested in it, and interpret evidence in a biased way. (This is predicted by the Bayes probability model, and there doesn't seem to be any way around it. Different preconceptions can result in the same evidence yielding incompatible conclusions. The only way out is to alter the priors and then rerun the calculation. But altering someone's priors is quite difficult, as they accept them as the truth.)
Well, far from the sun would help, but if you're also far from Earth you'll need to find some other way to shed heat. Radiation is pretty slow unless you build a huge emitter, and use a heat pump to move the heat from your CPU to the radiator.
Gravitational redshift was the first version predicted, and has been more thoroughly tested. Expansion based redshift was predicted later, and is harder to test directly (because we lack a time machine + FTL drive so we can't look at the same source from two significantly different times and places). But it's passed every indirect test so far.
In a way, this is a pity, because we know that either relativity, quantum theory, or both are flawed, because they differ in their predictions over things we have no way to observe. But since we have no way to observe the predicted events, we don't know which is predicting things correctly. It's frustrating when you know the theories are incorrect, but they keep making only correct predictions.
IIRC it involves doing a cross-product and projecting the results from a 4-space down to a 3-space. (Unless that was during the part of the derivation that was being done in a 16 dimensional space. If so Eigenvectors are involved which is sort of similar, but leaves you in a vector space rather than returning a scalar.)
Of course, different modes of derivation use different notations. The one I followed was based on matrices. I hit tensors and bounced two or three times.
I really have trouble with the phrase "established scientific fact". There is no such thing even possible. What can be shown is that repeated tests have not revealed any exceptions that can't be explained by known or suspected external causes (which need to be identified and listed).
I know that it's often used as short-hand by people who understand what is really meant, but when read by those who don't understand it tends to lead to confusion, and fixated beliefs. So it's dangerous short-hand, yielding aid and comfort to demagogues of all stripes.
Yes, the argument about PhDs was a bit misguided. I suspect that *some* humanities PhDs are allergic to math, but hardly most of them. Additionally, I don't find the NASA raw data all that compelling, and I much prefer a summarized form. Something like the Scientific American used to publish before the latest round of dumbing things down.
A valid point, but the name still needs to be changed. Either that or define it's orbit as the edge of the solar system, and I prefer the Heliopause for that. "Ultima Thule" means (approx.) "The ends of the earth", and giving the body that name puts an artificial boundary in people's minds.
You need to study a bit more Greek. Ultima Thule comes from classic Greek and means, approx., "the ends of the earth". Or are you a believer in sympathetic magic?
(FWIW, I am a believer in sympathetic magic, but you complaint still seems silly...and says more about you than about what you're complaining about. Note: Because I believe in sympathetic magic I avoid ads and won't use a swastika as a solar symbol. It does work, but it works internally, and you should notice the effects and act to achieve the results that you desire. Often this means avoiding the stimulus. In *this* case, though,... well, the appropriate counter charm is to read more Herodotus.)
The article that you quote was posted by a marketing manager. It looks to me as if he paraphrased a report he didn't understand. The article was from "The Maritime Herald", which is a on-line magazine mainly about shipping. The origin of the article is stated to be "Maritime News of Russia".
This article looks less reliable than most that are published here, and that's not any kind of praise.
They souldn't only be using Open Source, they should be using Free Software, preferably under some GPL or BSD license, with the weighing tilted towards GPL. And if they can't find it available, they should build it themselves (and publish it).
There may be a very few small instances where they shouldn't publish it, but in those cases the software shouldn't be distributed in object form either.
FWIW, I believe that personalized ads are fine. It's personalized prices that are immoral.
BUT!!! This requires them to have collected personal information on me, which *isn't* ok. Not unless it's based on things I've bought from them before. And not if they sell it, or leak it, to someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
No. That may or may not be the current game market, but I stopped buying games when I stopped being able to install them and play them without depending on a remote site for activation and access.
I was willing to put up with the abusive license terms that I wouldn't accept on software that I used for work, because I counted game a optional extra. I was not willing to accept "We got tired of that game" or "Oops, we're out of business" as a reason for my game to stop working.
So they killed a part of the gaming industry when they started requiring on-line access to the gamer's computer. And for my part it can just stay dead until they drop dead. (Yes, a few games that I liked died before I wised up.)
That's true, but how many of the people saying that are astroturfers? (Well, not really "how many". Actually "what proportion".)
I don't know, it wasn't on the news. But if I call my brother I'll hear about it.
Sorry, I've got to disagree. There's more actual news than could possibly be streamed. Now if you require that the news be exciting and interesting, then you might have a point. But, e.g., the basket ball scores for the Fargo, Dakota https://scorestream.com/explor... never get reported on the news channel. Neither did the interesting thing my niece did on here birthday.
So it's what they decided to sell, it's not that there wasn't enough news.
No. The reason is that while young nut jobs tend to be on the left, older nut jobs tend to be on the right. It's a bit difficult to be precise here, but I think the crossover point is a bit over 28 years old. So when the bulge of the population was young, most of the nut jobs were on the left, but as it has aged more of them have moved to the right.
Of course, part of the problem with this is that the left-right dichotomy is an artificial simplification, and whether a belief is called left or right often depends on how those who don't accept it describe it. And they will be prejudiced differently than those that do accept it. Whoops!
If I'd bothered to learn and use Tex, I wouldn't have needed to. But HTML was quicker, Netscape had a decent HTML editor. So I never bothered to. I still haven't.
This was around 1997-98, so we're talking about the same period. Perhaps we were doing different things with the text.
Well...there's also the question of exactly WHAT will get implemented. Just because we're told that a regulation will do something we desire doesn't mean it won't do a lot of things we don't desire, even if it actually does do what we desire. I don't know the SHAKEN/STIR framework, and I certainly haven't analyzed how it works, or in what ways it could be manipulated.
Well, I read the MS EULA, and switched to Apple. A few years later Apple revised their EULA (in an essential security update!). I switched to Linux even though it didn't have a decent word processor at the time. (Well, there was tex, but LaTex was broken, and AbiWord wasn't sufficient.) I ended up doing word processing in HTML and putting page numbers on by hand. But it was better than agreeing to those EULAs.
Sorry, but you should rephrase that slightly to:
Human nature tells us that some people are selfish assholes only out for their own interests.
Even that's an overstatement, though sometimes it's hard to believe.
If you have been following the argument, it requires BOTH relativity and quantum theory to explain why those muons were detected where they were.
And I also disagree with your first paragraph. Read my prior post, as you don't seem to have read it before. A fact is not a theory, and conversely. A theory is an explanation for a fact. It may or may not be the correct explanation, and the theory that explains any particular fact will almost(?) always need to be a union of less specialized theories (plus a few rules of inference). Theories are (well, often are) the interface between math and observation. So one has the EGW Multi-world theory that is an explanation (interpretation) of the observations that justify quantum physics. But in that particular case (as often) several different mappings from the observations into human mental processes are possible. In this particular case the different mappings are generally called different interpretations. They all use the same physical phenomena (observations) as their starting point, and in this case they use exactly the same math to describe the observations. Then they interpret the math in different ways. But the interpretation is not allowed to alter either the observations or the math.
He wrote several things that have survived as books. But I sort of doubt I would consider them books in their original form. To quote Wikipedia:
Writers in the Hellenistic-Roman culture wrote longer texts as scrolls; these were stored in boxes or shelving with small cubbyholes, similar to a modern winerack. Court records and notes were written on wax tablets, while important documents were written on papyrus or parchment. The modern English word book comes from the Proto-Germanic *bokiz, referring to the beechwood on which early written works were recorded.
The question is "How does one become a skilled and effective debater?", and that's not necessarily strongly correlated with intelligence. It is, however, strongly correlated with instruction and practice in debating. And for getting that, high end schools are nearly the only training ground.
And even that's nearly irrelevant, because this particular individual was chosen because he was a top level debater. That he went to Cambridge and Oxford is part of his history. Perhaps he could have gone to Podunk High School, and ended up being a top debater, but that didn't happen. (And one can guess many reasons why that didn't happen, but that would require other sources of information.)
I would strongly suspect that being from a wealthy family was also an implicit requirement, because usually debating teams need to finance their own travel expenses. But I could easily be wrong on this guess. (I just don't think I am. However the financing could be indirect. It could be included in the tuition for the high end schools.)
The Roman you are thinking of was probably Cicero. He founded a school of rhetoric which specialized in winning arguments. He wasn't really interested in whether the argument was valid, only in whether it would sway the audience.
I'm not sure that he wrote a book I rather doubt it. But he wrote numerous articles on his "art", and I'd be surprised if someone didn't gather them together into a book and say it was by Cicero. (He was famous enough that few would have the gall to claim to be the author of one of his papers. [He was also a lawyer with a strong record of winning cases.])
The fact is the observation of the muon. Relativity is the explanation used to explain it. One is a fact, the other is a theory. Facts can never be refuted. Explanations of facts ("a small epileptic attack caused the UFO siting") can (at least in principle) be shown to be incorrect. They can never be shown to be correct.
No. Nobody knowledgeable would assert that Relativity is correct. Just that every prediction that it has made that we have checked is correct.
The problem is that Quantum Theory has a track record at least as good as Relativity, and they disagree about predictions for some things we can't check. So one of them has to be wrong.
OTOH, they are both extremely, extremely, extremely good theories. They've both been checked in a huge number of instances, and they've both passed every check. They are both used in building really delicate and complex gadgets, and they work fine. But at least one of them is wrong.
OTOH, there are problem that need explanation. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are both labels for things that have never been seen or detected, and we don't know why, or what they are. Some of the effects they are used to explain can be put down to the asymmetrical distribution of matter, but how much is too difficult to calculate...however it sure doesn't look like that can explain it all. Every theorized candidate for "Dark Matter" has failed to show up where experimenters were hoping to find it.
When the theory says "If you see this effect, then it can be explained by something with these characteristics in that location" it sounds good. But if the characteristics aren't something you can directly detect, then it's a lot iffier.
Because we know there's something wrong, people keep building alternative theories. But these theories have to make an ungodly number of exactly correct predictions to rate serious consideration. And they need to predict something sufficiently different from the current theory which is both correct, and reasonably testable. Also, when people spend a lot of time on any particular theory, they tend to become invested in it, and interpret evidence in a biased way. (This is predicted by the Bayes probability model, and there doesn't seem to be any way around it. Different preconceptions can result in the same evidence yielding incompatible conclusions. The only way out is to alter the priors and then rerun the calculation. But altering someone's priors is quite difficult, as they accept them as the truth.)
Well, far from the sun would help, but if you're also far from Earth you'll need to find some other way to shed heat. Radiation is pretty slow unless you build a huge emitter, and use a heat pump to move the heat from your CPU to the radiator.
Gravitational redshift was the first version predicted, and has been more thoroughly tested. Expansion based redshift was predicted later, and is harder to test directly (because we lack a time machine + FTL drive so we can't look at the same source from two significantly different times and places). But it's passed every indirect test so far.
In a way, this is a pity, because we know that either relativity, quantum theory, or both are flawed, because they differ in their predictions over things we have no way to observe. But since we have no way to observe the predicted events, we don't know which is predicting things correctly. It's frustrating when you know the theories are incorrect, but they keep making only correct predictions.
IIRC it involves doing a cross-product and projecting the results from a 4-space down to a 3-space. (Unless that was during the part of the derivation that was being done in a 16 dimensional space. If so Eigenvectors are involved which is sort of similar, but leaves you in a vector space rather than returning a scalar.)
Of course, different modes of derivation use different notations. The one I followed was based on matrices. I hit tensors and bounced two or three times.
I really have trouble with the phrase "established scientific fact". There is no such thing even possible. What can be shown is that repeated tests have not revealed any exceptions that can't be explained by known or suspected external causes (which need to be identified and listed).
I know that it's often used as short-hand by people who understand what is really meant, but when read by those who don't understand it tends to lead to confusion, and fixated beliefs. So it's dangerous short-hand, yielding aid and comfort to demagogues of all stripes.
Yes, the argument about PhDs was a bit misguided. I suspect that *some* humanities PhDs are allergic to math, but hardly most of them. Additionally, I don't find the NASA raw data all that compelling, and I much prefer a summarized form. Something like the Scientific American used to publish before the latest round of dumbing things down.
A valid point, but the name still needs to be changed. Either that or define it's orbit as the edge of the solar system, and I prefer the Heliopause for that. "Ultima Thule" means (approx.) "The ends of the earth", and giving the body that name puts an artificial boundary in people's minds.
You need to study a bit more Greek. Ultima Thule comes from classic Greek and means, approx., "the ends of the earth". Or are you a believer in sympathetic magic?
(FWIW, I am a believer in sympathetic magic, but you complaint still seems silly...and says more about you than about what you're complaining about. Note: Because I believe in sympathetic magic I avoid ads and won't use a swastika as a solar symbol. It does work, but it works internally, and you should notice the effects and act to achieve the results that you desire. Often this means avoiding the stimulus. In *this* case, though, ... well, the appropriate counter charm is to read more Herodotus.)
The article that you quote was posted by a marketing manager. It looks to me as if he paraphrased a report he didn't understand. The article was from "The Maritime Herald", which is a on-line magazine mainly about shipping. The origin of the article is stated to be "Maritime News of Russia".
This article looks less reliable than most that are published here, and that's not any kind of praise.
They souldn't only be using Open Source, they should be using Free Software, preferably under some GPL or BSD license, with the weighing tilted towards GPL. And if they can't find it available, they should build it themselves (and publish it).
There may be a very few small instances where they shouldn't publish it, but in those cases the software shouldn't be distributed in object form either.
FWIW, I believe that personalized ads are fine. It's personalized prices that are immoral.
BUT!!!
This requires them to have collected personal information on me, which *isn't* ok. Not unless it's based on things I've bought from them before. And not if they sell it, or leak it, to someone else.