15 mile north of Indianapolis - I work nights, and was just, literally, flopping into bed when it hit - I was kind of going "I didn't hit the bed *that* hard when my mother (My name is on the mortgage - my mother lives with me dammit!) knocked on the door really concerned about what the heck *that* was. We thought it might have been a large truck or something.
Didn't find out about the quake till this afternoon, although I'm fairly sure I got woke up by an aftershock.
I read the article, and dug into the original experiment a bit as well, just to check *my* assumptions.
The Monty Hall pov only applies if the person revealing the door themselves has an absolute knowledge of which is the preferred response. That's not the case in this experiment.
The fact is, the result of the Monty Python experiment is famously counter-intuitive because it's not a system one comes up with in 'normal' conditions - one person has to have a specific kind of knowledge, and intentionally reveal the information in a specific kind of way - but it *looks* like a situation that could come up under normal conditions. It has the *illusion* of looking normal.
You *can* hit these conditions accidentally (I feel safe in assuming that "Let's Make A Deal" didn't actually plan for this to be a famous statistical paradox when they designed it.) and that makes it worth verifying that the original experiment didn't reproduce those conditions.
But it's not hard to verify this. There may be other, subtle flaws in the experiment, but the preconditions for the Monty Python paradox just aren't there.
Far be it for be to object to the vilification of psychologist, but the Monty Hall problem is a specific can where the release of additional information by an agent with perfect information, not done at random, result in additional information about the original decision.
Monty A) Will never reveal a car B) will never open the door you already picked.
If either of those factors don't apply, the counterintuitive probabilites of the Monty Haul problem disappear.
Neither of those seems to apply to the psychological cases used for cognitive dissonance. The error in this case doesn't seem to me to be the psychologists - the economist is applying an incorrect model based on a superficial similarity between a carefully reviewed experiment, and, ah, a game show.
Hard to believe, I know. But I would avoid getting too emotionally invested in this - Refusal to believe in the experimental evidence for cognitive dissonance because of bad logic like this would create an entirely new category of "Ironic Dissonance".
Do you really want to be responsible for an entirely new psychological discipline? Of course you don't.
Actually, yes, yes it does. Choosing to completely ignore the law in the pursuit of your goals would make you Neutral or Chaotic - perverting the law implies working within it, thus Lawful.
Yeah, that's what I was looking at. This *can't* drive energy prices down, because the expense of shale oil itself is so high.
I remember Limbaugh shooting his mouth off about our oil reserves having this huge reservoir of "Ten Times as much as the Saudi's" that we didn't use because of those oversensitive environmental activists.
After awhile of trying to figure out wtf he was talking about I figured out he was spouting off about the Rocky Mountain shale reserves, which only become cost effective if oil is over something like $70 dollars a barrel, and is just an absolutely landscape scarring disaster even at those prices.
I'd say it's cheaper to just give tax incentives and move over to electric cars, solar energy, and lets get those new super-efficient battery/capacitors online too.
Or just wait for someone to perfect a shipstone in his basement.
In any case, I think Oil has carried our civilization just about as far as it's gonna.
She's the heir to a multi-billion dollar fortune, with a personal worth in the millions, who can't keep recordings of her personal sex life off the internet, or from being involved in public idiocy time after time.
Sorry, by no means does that imply either an Int or a Wis score without a penalty assigned to it. -1 at a minimum.
My *mom* is using Ubuntu, and doing pretty well at it, thanks for your concern.
On the other hand, to be able to use it to it's full potential - that's different - a good guide gives you answers to questions you didn't think to ask. My mom in perfectly capable of doing lots of things, once she has a concept that, well, oh . . . you can *do* that. Doesn't mean she'll think to ask me that, or remember to ask me that next time she see's me.
"This is a form of tough love," said Jonathan Lamy
To be blunt, the kind of comment we've learned to expect from someone that leaves bruises on the children then complains when the courts take them away.
Except, here's the thing. I will accept that I can put up with the network check of a program if I'm collateral damage to keeping it from being pirated.
However, actually, I'm collateral damage and stuff gets pirated anyway. You want to make me wait an extra minute while your overloaded server does a check so you can stop pirates, then by god, you need to actually stop pirates. Otherwise, you're putting yourself in the situation of competing with pirates putting out a superior version of your product.
I don't mind being moral and ethical - I do have some objections to being punished for it.
Trust Indiana to leave a simple system with no DST for a complex one that screws with my sleep twice a year, because businesses could not *stand* to not follow the rest of the country.
Just before congress changed the whole thing, rendering the DST capable alarm clock I bought a waste of money after one year.
Just so we can prove the whole reason we were supposedly doing this was a crock anyway.
Can we go back to regular Indiana time now please? Oh, wait. Republican administration, they'll just change the reasoning again.
Illegally downloading and installing Vista is like stealing paint so I can repaint my house Lime Green and Watermelon Pink. Sure, I'm smart enough to break into a hardware store and steal paint, but why would I steal ugly paint?
Oh Really? HAH! Your idea, while it seems on the surface valid, is the product of an obviously simple, even ignorant, mind!
You see, Iocane powder, while among the worlds deadlier poisons, is ingested and has never been shown to penetrate the skin. To simply coat the keyboard that way would be a waste of a fairly rare and expensive substance - why, even dissolving it in DMSO would be ineffective - DMSO does evaporate, leaving only the original residue - unless some *fool* checked the computer and then, say ate a sandwich without washing their hands, there's no way you could *possibly* protect a computer in that fashion!
Such a silly, stupid idea - Inconceivable! To imagine I interrupted my lunch just to school you about furiously!
Supervision isn't a parental right - it's a parental responsibility. This concept that you can 'raise your kids properly' and divest yourself of that responsibility is therefore just silly.
Sorry - by definition, if you have given someone that has not yet developed the capacity for thinking things through rationally absolute unfettered access to an environment that can cause them harm - you are *not* "raising them properly" - if nothing else, you have taught them it's acceptable to abdicate their responsibilities to those that may some day be under their care.
That isn't to say that it's not *also* a responsibility to foster your children's maturity, capacity to think concisely, and for them to know, value, and protect their own rights so that they can live in the real world as adults. All these things involve exposing them to risk and letting them get burned even when you see it coming.
But balancing these two conflicting responsibilities is part of being a parent. Making that (supremely difficult) judgment call is *not* the same as abdicating one of them because you 'know' you've raised them properly.
That's just silly. You're postulating additional theoretical constraints to keep from dealing with an simple theory.
Bluntly, if *that* were the case that these imbalances in electrical charge were so common as to provide the same effects as a black hole -
A) We'd be having those issues locally, great lightning strikes from the Moon to the Earth, Jupiter destroying its satellites, et al. In other word, we wouldn't be here to argue about it.
B) Even if something disrupted the possibility of this as a local phenomenon - electromagnetism on such scales is hardly a quiet phenomenon - you would see stars repulsed by each other, great galactic 'sparks' though the giant molecular clouds.
C) As you mentioned - the electromagnetic forces are 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity - yet the orbital velocities of the stars orbiting the mass at the center of our galactic core are predictable using gravity - That the imbalance of our mysterious mass should, by odd coincidence, *exactly* match the orbits predicted using gravity as a guide. Well, if true then God is playing an awfully mean trick on Occam.
Fundamentally, you're attacking a simple and obvious theoretical construct, by invoking numerous entities that are completely not needed to explain the issue. I would submit to you sir that all theories are *not* gray - your's is in fact quite colorful - {G}.
"Doesn't this make, in some sense, an ultimate matter --> energy converter" yes - but the release process can take a long time; If a given radiation output (say, 434,424,150,177 joules per second, the U.S. electrical use per Wikipedia) is balanced by a given input ((E in joules/sec) / (c^2)= 4.8 Kg mass converted per seconds) then it's really not a time issue - the energy is generated by the tidal forces of the black hole - it goes up as the hole gets smaller, down as it gets larger. So there's a degree of latency is adjusting it, but there's no time delay in the conversion process - you're just keeping the tidal forces from going out of control. Just don't run out of garbage to through down the hole -.
"it seems to me that this violates entropy in some fashion," No it doesn't the hawking radiation is effectively (expected to be) white noise, the input matter is organised - entropy has increased. not really - the hawking radiation is also 'useful energy', by definition of low entropy. Indeed, every photon of background radiation that's absorbed at temperature X (wat, like , and then re-emitted at a temperature above that means a lowering of entropy doesn't it? As long as the hawking radiation is above the temperature of the background radiation of the universe, then the black hole is anti-entropic isn't it? And since the expansion of the universe in turn guarantees that, eventually, any given black how will have a higher black-body temperature than the background radiation of the universe,eventually they will always be anti-entropic - releasing more energy than they take in. Smaller black holes are just further along in the process to start with.
"Disregarding the fact that creating and maintaining a blackhole itself would require superscience" Maintaining a blackhole is easy - feed it matter at approximately the rate it is radiating (the e-mc2 thing) and it will be good for longer than any race may want to live, even without the input. Correct creating a non-trivial blackhole requires manipulating at least stellar quantities of matter - the smaller they are the faster they (are expected to) evaporate.
" hole, the energy from the Black hole is converted into simple hydrogen" Doing this without significant losses requires the superscience you mention Yeah - that's fun SF speculation. But the fundamentals don't seem to be particularly a problem - black holes still seems to me to be anti-entropic.
BUSH: Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could re-open dangerous gaps in our intelligence.
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector. Yeah - it's not about making sure we don't get hit - it's about making sure we don't get hit . . .
I confess - I mainly want them impeached because I want this whole "Unitary Executive" theory challenged and sent back to the bowels of hell from which it came.
I don't *want* Obama or Hillary to have this kind of power, and I certainly don't want McCain to have this kind of power.
The only reason I can come up with that the Republicans haven't bucked the White House on this is that, fundamentally, they don't think the Democrats will have the imagination to really abuse it the way they have. What the hell are they going to do if Obama get's elected, and turns out to be a charming, charismatic, and ruthless SOB?
I hate to say it - but 60% of the country hate's Bushes guts. What the hell are they going to do if we have a likable person with a 65% job approval rating doing unto them as they've done to us?
Slashdot Mirror
Frickinghades.
I *survived* Tomb of Horrors!
. . . to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee!
Call the Colbert Report - I demand that WotC be put on Notice!
15 mile north of Indianapolis - I work nights, and was just, literally, flopping into bed when it hit - I was kind of going "I didn't hit the bed *that* hard when my mother (My name is on the mortgage - my mother lives with me dammit!) knocked on the door really concerned about what the heck *that* was. We thought it might have been a large truck or something.
Didn't find out about the quake till this afternoon, although I'm fairly sure I got woke up by an aftershock.
I might be wrong, but I have no recollection of having ever gotten an erection from reading a legal letter before.
Pug
I read the article, and dug into the original experiment a bit as well, just to check *my* assumptions.
The Monty Hall pov only applies if the person revealing the door themselves has an absolute knowledge of which is the preferred response. That's not the case in this experiment.
The fact is, the result of the Monty Python experiment is famously counter-intuitive because it's not a system one comes up with in 'normal' conditions - one person has to have a specific kind of knowledge, and intentionally reveal the information in a specific kind of way - but it *looks* like a situation that could come up under normal conditions. It has the *illusion* of looking normal.
You *can* hit these conditions accidentally (I feel safe in assuming that "Let's Make A Deal" didn't actually plan for this to be a famous statistical paradox when they designed it.) and that makes it worth verifying that the original experiment didn't reproduce those conditions.
But it's not hard to verify this. There may be other, subtle flaws in the experiment, but the preconditions for the Monty Python paradox just aren't there.
Pug
Far be it for be to object to the vilification of psychologist, but the Monty Hall problem is a specific can where the release of additional information by an agent with perfect information, not done at random, result in additional information about the original decision.
Monty
A) Will never reveal a car
B) will never open the door you already picked.
If either of those factors don't apply, the counterintuitive probabilites of the Monty Haul problem disappear.
Neither of those seems to apply to the psychological cases used for cognitive dissonance. The error in this case doesn't seem to me to be the psychologists - the economist is applying an incorrect model based on a superficial similarity between a carefully reviewed experiment, and, ah, a game show.
Hard to believe, I know. But I would avoid getting too emotionally invested in this - Refusal to believe in the experimental evidence for cognitive dissonance because of bad logic like this would create an entirely new category of "Ironic Dissonance".
Do you really want to be responsible for an entirely new psychological discipline? Of course you don't.
Pug
Pug
Actually, yes, yes it does. Choosing to completely ignore the law in the pursuit of your goals would make you Neutral or Chaotic - perverting the law implies working within it, thus Lawful.
Pug
Yeah, that's what I was looking at. This *can't* drive energy prices down, because the expense of shale oil itself is so high.
I remember Limbaugh shooting his mouth off about our oil reserves having this huge reservoir of "Ten Times as much as the Saudi's" that we didn't use because of those oversensitive environmental activists.
After awhile of trying to figure out wtf he was talking about I figured out he was spouting off about the Rocky Mountain shale reserves, which only become cost effective if oil is over something like $70 dollars a barrel, and is just an absolutely landscape scarring disaster even at those prices.
I'd say it's cheaper to just give tax incentives and move over to electric cars, solar energy, and lets get those new super-efficient battery/capacitors online too.
Or just wait for someone to perfect a shipstone in his basement.
In any case, I think Oil has carried our civilization just about as far as it's gonna.
Pug
No one of us can take him
SO WE'LL HAVE TO GANG UP ON HIM - C'MON GUYS!!!
boot to the head . . .
Lawful Evil - Or David Addington and John Yoo wouldn't have had jobs.
Pug
She's the heir to a multi-billion dollar fortune, with a personal worth in the millions, who can't keep recordings of her personal sex life off the internet, or from being involved in public idiocy time after time.
Sorry, by no means does that imply either an Int or a Wis score without a penalty assigned to it. -1 at a minimum.
Pug
Yes, but his level he can pick the feat "Dalek Wheel Chair" and can either levitate up (at will) or level the building (also at will).
What feats the building gets when leveled is uncertain till edition 4.5.
Pug
To *use* it sure.
My *mom* is using Ubuntu, and doing pretty well at it, thanks for your concern.
On the other hand, to be able to use it to it's full potential - that's different - a good guide gives you answers to questions you didn't think to ask. My mom in perfectly capable of doing lots of things, once she has a concept that, well, oh . . . you can *do* that. Doesn't mean she'll think to ask me that, or remember to ask me that next time she see's me.
For that - yeah, I'm looking for a good book.
Pug
Thank God I wasn't the only one going "There's a bad joke there just begging to be made" - {G}
Pug
"This is a form of tough love," said Jonathan Lamy
To be blunt, the kind of comment we've learned to expect from someone that leaves bruises on the children then complains when the courts take them away.
Pug
Except, here's the thing. I will accept that I can put up with the network check of a program if I'm collateral damage to keeping it from being pirated.
However, actually, I'm collateral damage and stuff gets pirated anyway. You want to make me wait an extra minute while your overloaded server does a check so you can stop pirates, then by god, you need to actually stop pirates. Otherwise, you're putting yourself in the situation of competing with pirates putting out a superior version of your product.
I don't mind being moral and ethical - I do have some objections to being punished for it.
Pug
Trust Indiana to leave a simple system with no DST for a complex one that screws with my sleep twice a year, because businesses could not *stand* to not follow the rest of the country.
Just before congress changed the whole thing, rendering the DST capable alarm clock I bought a waste of money after one year.
Just so we can prove the whole reason we were supposedly doing this was a crock anyway.
Can we go back to regular Indiana time now please? Oh, wait. Republican administration, they'll just change the reasoning again.
sigh.
Pug
Be a man - Call it GMT!
Pug
There's a crack for Vista? Why?
Illegally downloading and installing Vista is like stealing paint so I can repaint my house Lime Green and Watermelon Pink. Sure, I'm smart enough to break into a hardware store and steal paint, but why would I steal ugly paint?
Pug
Oh Really? HAH! Your idea, while it seems on the surface valid, is the product of an obviously simple, even ignorant, mind!
You see, Iocane powder, while among the worlds deadlier poisons, is ingested and has never been shown to penetrate the skin. To simply coat the keyboard that way would be a waste of a fairly rare and expensive substance - why, even dissolving it in DMSO would be ineffective - DMSO does evaporate, leaving only the original residue - unless some *fool* checked the computer and then, say ate a sandwich without washing their hands, there's no way you could *possibly* protect a computer in that fashion!
Such a silly, stupid idea - Inconceivable! To imagine I interrupted my lunch just to school you about furiously!
{thud}rtyuidfghjkcvbnm
Supervision isn't a parental right - it's a parental responsibility. This concept that you can 'raise your kids properly' and divest yourself of that responsibility is therefore just silly.
Sorry - by definition, if you have given someone that has not yet developed the capacity for thinking things through rationally absolute unfettered access to an environment that can cause them harm - you are *not* "raising them properly" - if nothing else, you have taught them it's acceptable to abdicate their responsibilities to those that may some day be under their care.
That isn't to say that it's not *also* a responsibility to foster your children's maturity, capacity to think concisely, and for them to know, value, and protect their own rights so that they can live in the real world as adults. All these things involve exposing them to risk and letting them get burned even when you see it coming.
But balancing these two conflicting responsibilities is part of being a parent. Making that (supremely difficult) judgment call is *not* the same as abdicating one of them because you 'know' you've raised them properly.
Pug
Riiightttt.
Sorry, if only I had known I was dealing with the next Einstein, Galileo, Cochrane - then I would have taken you seriously.
Pug
That's just silly. You're postulating additional theoretical constraints to keep from dealing with an simple theory.
Bluntly, if *that* were the case that these imbalances in electrical charge were so common as to provide the same effects as a black hole -
A) We'd be having those issues locally, great lightning strikes from the Moon to the Earth, Jupiter destroying its satellites, et al. In other word, we wouldn't be here to argue about it.
B) Even if something disrupted the possibility of this as a local phenomenon - electromagnetism on such scales is hardly a quiet phenomenon - you would see stars repulsed by each other, great galactic 'sparks' though the giant molecular clouds.
C) As you mentioned - the electromagnetic forces are 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity - yet the orbital velocities of the stars orbiting the mass at the center of our galactic core are predictable using gravity - That the imbalance of our mysterious mass should, by odd coincidence, *exactly* match the orbits predicted using gravity as a guide. Well, if true then God is playing an awfully mean trick on Occam.
Fundamentally, you're attacking a simple and obvious theoretical construct, by invoking numerous entities that are completely not needed to explain the issue. I would submit to you sir that all theories are *not* gray - your's is in fact quite colorful - {G}.
Pug
yes - but the release process can take a long time; If a given radiation output (say, 434,424,150,177 joules per second, the U.S. electrical use per Wikipedia) is balanced by a given input ((E in joules/sec) / (c^2)= 4.8 Kg mass converted per seconds) then it's really not a time issue - the energy is generated by the tidal forces of the black hole - it goes up as the hole gets smaller, down as it gets larger. So there's a degree of latency is adjusting it, but there's no time delay in the conversion process - you're just keeping the tidal forces from going out of control. Just don't run out of garbage to through down the hole -
No it doesn't
the hawking radiation is effectively (expected to be) white noise, the input matter is organised - entropy has increased. not really - the hawking radiation is also 'useful energy', by definition of low entropy. Indeed, every photon of background radiation that's absorbed at temperature X (wat, like , and then re-emitted at a temperature above that means a lowering of entropy doesn't it? As long as the hawking radiation is above the temperature of the background radiation of the universe, then the black hole is anti-entropic isn't it? And since the expansion of the universe in turn guarantees that, eventually, any given black how will have a higher black-body temperature than the background radiation of the universe,eventually they will always be anti-entropic - releasing more energy than they take in. Smaller black holes are just further along in the process to start with. "Disregarding the fact that creating and maintaining a blackhole itself would require superscience"
Maintaining a blackhole is easy - feed it matter at approximately the rate it is radiating (the e-mc2 thing) and it will be good for longer than any race may want to live, even without the input. Correct creating a non-trivial blackhole requires manipulating at least stellar quantities of matter - the smaller they are the faster they (are expected to) evaporate.
" hole, the energy from the Black hole is converted into simple hydrogen"
Doing this without significant losses requires the superscience you mention Yeah - that's fun SF speculation. But the fundamentals don't seem to be particularly a problem - black holes still seems to me to be anti-entropic.
Pug
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector. Yeah - it's not about making sure we don't get hit - it's about making sure we don't get hit . . .
I confess - I mainly want them impeached because I want this whole "Unitary Executive" theory challenged and sent back to the bowels of hell from which it came.
I don't *want* Obama or Hillary to have this kind of power, and I certainly don't want McCain to have this kind of power.
The only reason I can come up with that the Republicans haven't bucked the White House on this is that, fundamentally, they don't think the Democrats will have the imagination to really abuse it the way they have. What the hell are they going to do if Obama get's elected, and turns out to be a charming, charismatic, and ruthless SOB?
I hate to say it - but 60% of the country hate's Bushes guts. What the hell are they going to do if we have a likable person with a 65% job approval rating doing unto them as they've done to us?
Pug