No, sorry it is common knowledge. It's high school science and I'd find it extremely worrying if a judge doesn't even have an elementary grasp of high school science. This isn't about knowing the atomic number of copper off the top of your head. This is about knowing you can pick up a periodic table (printed in almost any chemistry text book and probably a lot of other general science books) and see it right there.
Do you need an expert witness to testify that 2+2=4?
That one person's (or group of people's) belief in fairy tales should hold back progress that could save countless lives and easy the suffering of millions.
So if you establish the correctness of the content from somewhere else, then why bother with the non-authoritative source of Wikipedia in the first place?
Sorry, but if you need to call a subject expert to tell you the atomic number of copper, you are a moron. As I said, pick up any chemistry text book and you'll find it. It is know, it is not disputed.
I saw some of the original props at the Children's Muesum in Indianapolis several months ago, and close up, to be honest, they look like crap. You might not want to use the original movie props as your standard to aim for.
No, no, no. Nothing should be "elegantly stated in Wikipedia" unless it was elegantly stated somewhere else first. Otherwise that would be original research. If Jones has given a proof, then that is what you should be citing.
Also a very good point. It's very easy to cite papers without bothering to read it and instead going on what you assume it says. And, if nobody else bothers to read the original source, it can take a long time for anybody to notice.
If I cited wikipedia as my source for stating that copper's atomic number is 29, why is my source not credible?
You shouldn't need to cite that, it's common knowledge. It's in any elementary chemistry text book.
You don't cite Wikipedia because it's not a primary source. Wikipedia doesn't generate any new knowledge (note WP:NOR) so everything in Wikipedia comes from somewhere else. You should, therefore, quote the somewhere it came from.
Because nobody cares about the path to the answer, it's not important. Nobody cares that you started with Wikipedia to get the real reference to a reliable source. You cite the original source of a fact.
Otherwise were does it end? I started with some internet forum where some anonymous poster told be to Google it. That lead me to Wikipedia that cited this paper! Nobody cares!
Not entirely correct either. The EnterprisePlus edition with raw EEG output is $7,500. The research $750 version is for individuals, research institutions and companies with turnover
The other thing that isn't clear to me is if you develop an application using the raw EEG output, do you need other $7,500 headsets to use that application on can you actually use them with the cheaper consumer headsets? If we develop something on our $7,500 headset and then want to implement it globally within our organization again it's trivial for a $299 headset, not so much for $7,500.
Don't know what it's like these days, but the last time I played with it, it was next to impossible to turn it off. Every time you started iTunes it would reset the service to start every time you start the computer. And I don't have an iPhone/iPod/iPad so there is no reason (other than Apple's arrogance) for the thing to be installed (without asking) in the first place.
But the point is that it hasn't happened yet and nobody can claim with any certainty that it will happen within a few hundred years, or a few thousand years, or ever. So it's a silly argument to try and use "us" as an example.
No it doesn't. The point of the test was to show how expectation colors perception, so it couldn't be done literally blind. The tasters expected the white wine to taste like red wine because it was red.
Actually, exactly the opposite. Wine snobs can't tell shit in double-blind tests. There was one recent test (don't have the reference handy) where "good sommeliers" couldn't tell the difference between red wine and white wine with red food coloring.
IIRC, you only needed a Rockstar account for online play and uploading stupid gameplay videos. I never signed up for one. You could use an offline GFWL account which I did for a long time before decided to try and see what this GFWL was about. But, yeah, either way it's still weak.
Slashdot Mirror
No, sorry it is common knowledge. It's high school science and I'd find it extremely worrying if a judge doesn't even have an elementary grasp of high school science. This isn't about knowing the atomic number of copper off the top of your head. This is about knowing you can pick up a periodic table (printed in almost any chemistry text book and probably a lot of other general science books) and see it right there.
Do you need an expert witness to testify that 2+2=4?
That one person's (or group of people's) belief in fairy tales should hold back progress that could save countless lives and easy the suffering of millions.
So if you establish the correctness of the content from somewhere else, then why bother with the non-authoritative source of Wikipedia in the first place?
Sorry, but if you need to call a subject expert to tell you the atomic number of copper, you are a moron. As I said, pick up any chemistry text book and you'll find it. It is know, it is not disputed.
I saw some of the original props at the Children's Muesum in Indianapolis several months ago, and close up, to be honest, they look like crap. You might not want to use the original movie props as your standard to aim for.
No, no, no. Nothing should be "elegantly stated in Wikipedia" unless it was elegantly stated somewhere else first. Otherwise that would be original research. If Jones has given a proof, then that is what you should be citing.
Also a very good point. It's very easy to cite papers without bothering to read it and instead going on what you assume it says. And, if nobody else bothers to read the original source, it can take a long time for anybody to notice.
If I cited wikipedia as my source for stating that copper's atomic number is 29, why is my source not credible?
You shouldn't need to cite that, it's common knowledge. It's in any elementary chemistry text book.
You don't cite Wikipedia because it's not a primary source. Wikipedia doesn't generate any new knowledge (note WP:NOR) so everything in Wikipedia comes from somewhere else. You should, therefore, quote the somewhere it came from.
Because nobody cares about the path to the answer, it's not important. Nobody cares that you started with Wikipedia to get the real reference to a reliable source. You cite the original source of a fact.
Otherwise were does it end? I started with some internet forum where some anonymous poster told be to Google it. That lead me to Wikipedia that cited this paper! Nobody cares!
I was trying to post in a hurry - the above is supposed to read "turnover less than $100,000"
I'm pretty sure their lawyers would have something to say about that.
The developer edition doesn't include raw EEG data. Just their blackbox interpretation of those signals.
Not entirely correct either. The EnterprisePlus edition with raw EEG output is $7,500. The research $750 version is for individuals, research institutions and companies with turnover
The other thing that isn't clear to me is if you develop an application using the raw EEG output, do you need other $7,500 headsets to use that application on can you actually use them with the cheaper consumer headsets? If we develop something on our $7,500 headset and then want to implement it globally within our organization again it's trivial for a $299 headset, not so much for $7,500.
And surely different color tubes (and/or sizes/connectors) would make industry happy. More sales of medical tubing if you can't interchange them.
Don't know what it's like these days, but the last time I played with it, it was next to impossible to turn it off. Every time you started iTunes it would reset the service to start every time you start the computer. And I don't have an iPhone/iPod/iPad so there is no reason (other than Apple's arrogance) for the thing to be installed (without asking) in the first place.
Doesn't change the fact that it runs as a service for no sensible reason at all.
Actually, Little Jacob is impossible to understand even with subtitles.
But the point is that it hasn't happened yet and nobody can claim with any certainty that it will happen within a few hundred years, or a few thousand years, or ever. So it's a silly argument to try and use "us" as an example.
Distillation of liquid air.
Except that we haven't. So we're no example at all.
No it doesn't. The point of the test was to show how expectation colors perception, so it couldn't be done literally blind. The tasters expected the white wine to taste like red wine because it was red.
Actually, exactly the opposite. Wine snobs can't tell shit in double-blind tests. There was one recent test (don't have the reference handy) where "good sommeliers" couldn't tell the difference between red wine and white wine with red food coloring.
No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the audiophiles.
IIRC, you only needed a Rockstar account for online play and uploading stupid gameplay videos. I never signed up for one. You could use an offline GFWL account which I did for a long time before decided to try and see what this GFWL was about. But, yeah, either way it's still weak.
I don't know what Bioware's up to, but I think Steam is different... since you're buying the game from them and getting it download-only,
Except when you buy the boxed game in the store....and still need a Steam account. That's why I'm not buying the more recent Total War games.