It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, though it'll be a while before we can test it.
Why couldn't we send a probe up (or down) relative to our solar system's plane? Measure the change in radiation readings as it goes and see just how much the Sun interferes with this radiation.
Stock bubbles are the result of speculation. Speculation is when people buy companies with incredibly high SharePrice/EarningsPerShare (P/E) ratios. For a mature company, this number is typically around 15, meaning if earnings stay the same, and all earnings are paid as dividends, over a 15 year period, you would not lose money even if the share price went to 0. For expanding companies, P/Es can typically be as high as 40.
In the bubble, investors were buying shares with very high prices despite very little earnings. The Nasdaq currently has an average P/E 24.01, which is reasonable if some companies are mature and some are in a high-growth state.
And... since when was Dvorak a market analyst? I thought he was just a troll who posted absurd comments in order to draw readers...
No level of "respect," whatever that means, will change that fact that people who believe evidence is the basis of knowledge, think basing knowledge is a silly thing to do. This is an irreconcilable difference.
To think someone has some silly beliefs does NOT mean you can't respect that person for other attributes or accomplishments.
It is possible to be great at one thing and stupid at another thing. Ability is not a one-dimensional attribute. Knuth is probably the only great figure in the computer industry who is strongly religious. Quit naming names, it doesn't advance your point.
Wrong premise again. You just claimed that empirically minded people have no doubts about anything. That's a straw-man, and it's the opposite of reality.
Sagan would say that skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. A scientific thinker doesn't really "believe" anything, to use the layman's definition of the term. He has varying levels of confidence in any particular theory. If theory is consistent with all available evidence and every attempt to disprove the theory has failed, then he would he would have high confidence in it (aka "I believe the maximum speed of information transmission is bounded by c"). If there is no or little evidence to support a theory ("Native americans are descendants of ancient migratory jews? I don't believe that because there is no evidence. Find some and I will reconsider"), a scientific thinker might say he does not believe a thing.
In the first case, we have 99.5% confidence, and in the second case, we have 0.01% confidence. Religious people profess 100% confidence in their beliefs. To paraphrase George Lucas, Only the religious and the Sith deal in absolutes.
So I hope that clears up your confusion as to what scientific empiricism is. It seems your ideas about science and atheism were in several ways opposite to reality. Perhaps you learned about these concepts from someone who was hoping to discredit them?
I could go into details, but I don't want to become a troll.
Supporting your position is considered trolling in your mind? A troll would be saying something sucks, yet offering nothing to back up the claim, which is what you actually did. Oh irony, thy name is rwven.
The episode wasn't about astronomy. The joke was specifically about a robot's dream. Robots think in binary, 0 or 1, hence the "2" joke. I think claiming it was a reference to astronomy is a bit of a stretch. Also, my understanding is that the universe is not infinite, but is actually expanding.
I'm not sure what you mean by "faithful atheist." Most who consider themselves atheists do so out of scientific empiricism, which is the opposite of faith. In such cases, a "faithful atheist" is a contradiction in terms.
To say you don't (a...) believe there is any god (...theist) because there is no evidence is NOT in any way a demonstration of "faith."
The volume of scientific knowledge you have memorized has no basis on whether you believe evidence is the foundation of knowledge. I could memorize all stories of Greek mythology, but that doesn't mean I believe in Apollo exists.
If anyone here is exhibiting intellectual elitism, not to mention a hint of sophistry, it's you. It is quite possible to be smart having studied little physics and history (Nixon is history to younger generations). A brilliant investor or biologist may have little understanding of how digital technology works. Despite being brilliant, such a person would not realize the humor in many Futurama jokes.
My list was of items required to fully appreciate the show in question. YOU are the only one here who implied that it was a list of requirements for being intelligent.
Also, the way you dismiss my broad assertions by contending only the specific examples smacks of sophistry.
I don't agree. My wife loves the show. "You need to have read Asimov and Heinlein" Okay I have read a lot of Asimov and a little of Heinlein. My wife has read none.
Therefore, your wife does not "fully appreciate" the show, as I originally stated.
"You must have seen pretty much all of ST:TOS" I think that is very very common.
It is certainly NOT very common for the under-30 crowd, who are a big market for animated comedy shows.
" You must have a college-level understanding of physics ("no fair! you changed the outcome by measuring it")" I would say that is high school physics but again my wife was a Poly sci major and took no physics.
That was one example. There are many science jokes. If you only have HS physics, you won't appreciate them all.
"You must have some understanding of American political history (President Nixon, etc.)" Okay knowing who Nixon was isn't exactly a deep understanding of political history.
He is the most prominent of the many historical political figures in the show. And, believe it or not, many of the under-30 demographic know little about even Nixon.
"You must know a bit about digital technology ("Don't worry, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.")" Maybe.
Not maybe. There are many computer-relate jokes that would no doubt be lost on my (typical, average) parents.
"You must not take religion too seriously ("sweet zombie Jesus!")" This is a big one.
At least you agree 100% on something I said. Family Guy and The Simpsons also require this for full appreciation. Most Evangelicals, born-agains, or whatever they want to call themselves, along with full-fledged catholics, would be offended by the observations that Jesus was a zombie, and that in 1000 years (when Futurama is set) their religions will most likely be about as popular as worshiping Thor or Zeus is today. Of course, it Western culture today, most people consider religion somewhere on the spectrum between "complete nonsense" and "gotta get married somewhere," so zombie jokes don't offend too much.
[some gripe about free-thinkers looking down on the religious]
Sorry, that's not going to change. People who think evidence is the foundation of knowledge will always look down on the faithful, who take pride in believing something despite a complete lack of (empirical) evidence. The faithful can, of course, look down on the scientifically-minded as being "the devil" or whatever.
I don't think that Futurama failed because it was too "smart" for the masses.
Nor do I. I simply said that knowledge in several distinct areas is required to fully appreciate the show. You are right that there are other things FOX could have done better. Perhaps Murdoch deliberately set it up to fail because he has a vested interest in keeping the world pacified by religion? FOX News certainly makes every attempt to stigmatize secular thinking. Who knows...
You must have a college-level understanding of physics ("no fair! you changed the outcome by measuring it")
You must have some understanding of American political history (President Nixon, etc.)
You must know a bit about digital technology ("Don't worry, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.")
Tou must not take religion too seriously ("sweet zombie Jesus!")
This is all true for the majority of my friends (who I know from engineering school or my career in software). However, my girlfriend's friends and my family can only check off one or two items on that list. They'll get a few laughs, sure. But even though The Simpsons and Family Guy are mediocre by comparison, those two shows never leave the majority of people thinking "I don't get it..." Futurama is just a masterpiece with a small audience, so it has less earning power.
The good news is that with Video over IP finally becoming cheap, HTPCs starting to catch on, and the popularity of DVD sales and rentals; the cost of entry to the TV show market is plummeting. The future looks good for shows like Futurama:-)
I think your friends are just dumb. In my senior year of college, my friends were all pretty much happy to get offers which were above the average salary the BLS lists for their field. The college also published average salary offer information for recent grads, which was $30k-$60k for most bachelor-level degrees.
Nobody expected six-figure salaries with four year degrees, because we were not ignorant of the statistics.
You are wrong. Engineering, as taught in universities, has always been about developing marketable skills. Software Engineering (which is the degree 99% of CIS students should actually be studying) is no different in this respect.
That hot chick you've been chatting with? There's a 95% chance she is a dude and a 5% chance that she is fat, ugly and crazy
That may have been true ten years ago. Today, myspace, facebook, and other "social" sites are more popular with women than men. Yes, you really can meet real women online. Just make sure they aren't Chris Hansen before you meet them:-)
send your prayers, positive vibes, your "mojo", or your voodoo.
Since study after study has shown that wishful thinking has no effect on the physical world, your suggestion doesn't help at all. It just makes you, personally, feel better about yourself.
Actually useful advice would be: study the incident report so that if you are ever in a similar situation, you don't make the same mistake. Additionally, help educate the public by stressing the importance of private space travel if it ever comes up in conversation.
Without reading the article (a slashdot tradition), why would your service be any better than using SSL? SSL was designed to detect alterations in content, and has been around for ages.
How? It has moderation, karma, threads, no client requirements, no abusive bots, and is presented in a form more conductive to essays than to 1-liner chats. Need I go on?
Like the other posters said, digg.com on Firefox on Linux is one. Zooming in and out on google maps quickly will overload a slow PC. Full screen video on Youtube will drop lots of frames on a slow PC. Lots of wiki-like software with rich text editors can seize up for seconds on obseleteware like yours. This last one is of the type which directly slows my productivity. Say you get a great idea in short term memory and you try to spray it out on a wiki. If it takes longer to load than the short term memory buffer of the human mind, you just lost some detail.
And with all that free time, they just might do their homework!
Actually, if they don't get hooked on youtube and WoW, the kids may spend that free time getting hooked on drugs and promiscuous sex. And that damn hip-hop music. Get off my lawn!
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying our future is going to be like X-men?
That is the best name for the Noah story yet.
Stock bubbles are the result of speculation. Speculation is when people buy companies with incredibly high SharePrice/EarningsPerShare (P/E) ratios. For a mature company, this number is typically around 15, meaning if earnings stay the same, and all earnings are paid as dividends, over a 15 year period, you would not lose money even if the share price went to 0. For expanding companies, P/Es can typically be as high as 40.
In the bubble, investors were buying shares with very high prices despite very little earnings. The Nasdaq currently has an average P/E 24.01, which is reasonable if some companies are mature and some are in a high-growth state.
And... since when was Dvorak a market analyst? I thought he was just a troll who posted absurd comments in order to draw readers...
No level of "respect," whatever that means, will change that fact that people who believe evidence is the basis of knowledge, think basing knowledge is a silly thing to do. This is an irreconcilable difference.
To think someone has some silly beliefs does NOT mean you can't respect that person for other attributes or accomplishments.
It is possible to be great at one thing and stupid at another thing. Ability is not a one-dimensional attribute. Knuth is probably the only great figure in the computer industry who is strongly religious. Quit naming names, it doesn't advance your point.
Wrong premise again. You just claimed that empirically minded people have no doubts about anything. That's a straw-man, and it's the opposite of reality.
Sagan would say that skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. A scientific thinker doesn't really "believe" anything, to use the layman's definition of the term. He has varying levels of confidence in any particular theory. If theory is consistent with all available evidence and every attempt to disprove the theory has failed, then he would he would have high confidence in it (aka "I believe the maximum speed of information transmission is bounded by c"). If there is no or little evidence to support a theory ("Native americans are descendants of ancient migratory jews? I don't believe that because there is no evidence. Find some and I will reconsider"), a scientific thinker might say he does not believe a thing.
In the first case, we have 99.5% confidence, and in the second case, we have 0.01% confidence. Religious people profess 100% confidence in their beliefs. To paraphrase George Lucas, Only the religious and the Sith deal in absolutes.
So I hope that clears up your confusion as to what scientific empiricism is. It seems your ideas about science and atheism were in several ways opposite to reality. Perhaps you learned about these concepts from someone who was hoping to discredit them?
The episode wasn't about astronomy. The joke was specifically about a robot's dream. Robots think in binary, 0 or 1, hence the "2" joke. I think claiming it was a reference to astronomy is a bit of a stretch. Also, my understanding is that the universe is not infinite, but is actually expanding.
I'm not sure what you mean by "faithful atheist." Most who consider themselves atheists do so out of scientific empiricism, which is the opposite of faith. In such cases, a "faithful atheist" is a contradiction in terms.
To say you don't (a...) believe there is any god (...theist) because there is no evidence is NOT in any way a demonstration of "faith."
The volume of scientific knowledge you have memorized has no basis on whether you believe evidence is the foundation of knowledge. I could memorize all stories of Greek mythology, but that doesn't mean I believe in Apollo exists.
If anyone here is exhibiting intellectual elitism, not to mention a hint of sophistry, it's you. It is quite possible to be smart having studied little physics and history (Nixon is history to younger generations). A brilliant investor or biologist may have little understanding of how digital technology works. Despite being brilliant, such a person would not realize the humor in many Futurama jokes.
My list was of items required to fully appreciate the show in question. YOU are the only one here who implied that it was a list of requirements for being intelligent.
Also, the way you dismiss my broad assertions by contending only the specific examples smacks of sophistry.
This is all true for the majority of my friends (who I know from engineering school or my career in software). However, my girlfriend's friends and my family can only check off one or two items on that list. They'll get a few laughs, sure. But even though The Simpsons and Family Guy are mediocre by comparison, those two shows never leave the majority of people thinking "I don't get it..." Futurama is just a masterpiece with a small audience, so it has less earning power.
The good news is that with Video over IP finally becoming cheap, HTPCs starting to catch on, and the popularity of DVD sales and rentals; the cost of entry to the TV show market is plummeting. The future looks good for shows like Futurama
I think your friends are just dumb. In my senior year of college, my friends were all pretty much happy to get offers which were above the average salary the BLS lists for their field. The college also published average salary offer information for recent grads, which was $30k-$60k for most bachelor-level degrees.
Nobody expected six-figure salaries with four year degrees, because we were not ignorant of the statistics.
Actually useful advice would be: study the incident report so that if you are ever in a similar situation, you don't make the same mistake. Additionally, help educate the public by stressing the importance of private space travel if it ever comes up in conversation.
I can't tell whether this is a display of satire or stupidity.
Without reading the article (a slashdot tradition), why would your service be any better than using SSL? SSL was designed to detect alterations in content, and has been around for ages.
Tivo gives customers what customers want (with some compromises). Cable Co DVRs give customers what the Cable Co wants.
Does every culture have taboo words?
Has anyone ever demonstrated that the existence of taboo words is socio-evolutionarily beneficial in some way?
Has anyone ever demonstrated that hearing taboo words actually harms children in ANY way?
Like the other posters said, digg.com on Firefox on Linux is one. Zooming in and out on google maps quickly will overload a slow PC. Full screen video on Youtube will drop lots of frames on a slow PC. Lots of wiki-like software with rich text editors can seize up for seconds on obseleteware like yours. This last one is of the type which directly slows my productivity. Say you get a great idea in short term memory and you try to spray it out on a wiki. If it takes longer to load than the short term memory buffer of the human mind, you just lost some detail.