Nope. That phrase was immediately followed by an example of heliocentrism being true before telescopes were invented and before Copernicus brought forward his theory, before man existed for that matter. Look at my original statement: "Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing." Nature's truths involve both the observable and the unobservable by current technology, the testable and the untestable by current technology. Science's truth are a subset of nature's truths.
... "not in conflict" is different from "compatible".
If you do not understand the distinction between the two then I suggest you think about it some more. Concentrate on the notion of two things being mutually exclusive. Things that are mutually exclusive are not necessarily compatible.
You can't simply say, "No, that is not my opinion" if I have proved it, you have to refute the logic.
There is nothing for me to refute if your logic addresses something I did not say. If you feel that I am rephrasing and repeating myself you might consider that I am simply trying to have you comprehend that you have misunderstood what I have said, that your logic is addressing a misrepresentation of what I have said. I'd be happy to address your logic should you decide to apply it to what I have actually said. Until then...
The time you put into your studies is also a payment. Its merely a payment that does not go into the school's bank account.
Some rare individuals are perfectly capable of a university level education through their own independent studies. That said, most people who believe they are capable of doing so are incorrect. One of many reasons is that they will cherry pick topics to study and pass on some topic that they have no interest in, this is often a mistake. Most people need the structure of a formal degree program, or something comparable, to get the broader understanding that they actually should have.
... Someone coming up with a field-changing idea without being a professional scientist, and potentially having a religious agenda... I can see how this would be easy to dismiss...
All that was said is that some truth are not currently observable. Being unobservable by current technology and understanding hardly makes something true or untrue.
Your first sentence contradicts the latter directly.
Nope. Truths are truths. Whether humans are capable of seeing the truth changes nothing. For example the heliocentric nature of our solar system was the truth, before and after the invention of telescopes, before and after Copernicus brought forth his theory. Scientific understanding merely recognized a formerly undiscovered truth.
A Formal Restatement
Which is another straw man saying things I have not. Again, what I wrote was:
"Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing. Science and religion answer different types of questions. Science aims to answer questions regarding the "mechanics" of the universe. Religions aims to answer questions related to the intent and the wishes of a deity. Some churches argue that these two types of questions are mutually exclusive and thus there is no conflict between science and religion."
Premise: If Science and Religion deal with different subjects, they are compatible.
Again, you fundamentally misunderstand my statement. What I said is that some churches believe science and religion are mutually exclusive and therefore not in conflict. That is something quite different from being compatible.
Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing.
Science is a method for finding truth about the observable universe.
You are aware that you merely rephrased my point?
If you admit truths that are not scientific you have just redefined truth in a way that is not compatible with the scientific method.
Now you are constructing a straw man. All that was said is that some truth are not currently observable. Being unobservable by current technology and understanding hardly makes something true or untrue.
It should be noted that you also fail at logic: the existence of a church with a certain set of beliefs is your premise, not a conclusion, and even were it true that any or all churches were compatible with science, you cannot logically conclude that no conflict exists.
Its not a premise, its not a conclusion, it is a simple fact that some churches state that there is no conflict between scientific findings and religion. Science is about observing and understanding the working of the universe. Religion is about morality, the intent or wishes of a deity, etc. That there is no conflict because there is no overlap. That no understanding of the workings or the origin of the universe, of the human body, etc addresses religious topics like morality, deities, souls, etc.
The fact that some churches believe as described above is an observable phenomena. Its even testable and repeatable. Hence it is a scientific finding.;-)
Science is an objective, empirical method of finding truth. Religious believers have either an alternate definition of truth, or an alternate method of determining it.
Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing. Science and religion answer different types of questions. Science aims to answer questions regarding the "mechanics" of the universe. Religions aims to answer questions related to the intent and the wishes of a deity. Some churches argue that these two types of questions are mutually exclusive and thus there is no conflict between science and religion.
The [Big Bang] theory was offered by a Roman Catholic priest. Some of the leading scientists of the day dismissed this theory merely because it was developed by a priest, they dismissed it as "smelling of creationism".
Not because it came from a priest, but because the church was specifically trying to frame it as proof of creation. Lamaitre had to write the pope telling him the science implied no such thing and asking him to please stop saying it did. Basically, even while being a priest, Lamaitre was wise enough to keep religion out of his science.
I do not believe that would "exonerate" those scientists. Whether the pope liked or disliked a scientific theory is irrelevant from a scientific perspective. The fact that they made such a comment still indicates an inherent hostility to the theory due to its possible alignment with a theology. They seem to have acted very much like that pope, forming an opinion on a scientific theory due to possible alignment with a theology, merely of the opposite "polarity".
The union problem is not necessarily teacher salary. There might be a problem where some teachers make little to no contribution to benefits like health care and retirement, but that is a really complicated issue that can't be generalized. Contracts can vary from place to place, some reasonable, some not. The real union problem is probably union support for teachers who are not good teachers. The unions no longer seem to be the guardians of their craft, enforcing their own high standards of quality upon their members. Unions used to kick out members who couldn't perform to high standards. Today some claim that some union leadership is essentially a part of the educational bureaucracy protecting the status quo.
At $91,700 per pupil from kindergarten through twelfth grade, the U.S. is outspent only by Switzerland in the education arena. Cash is not a problem.
Lots of money that doesn't seem to make it to the classrooms. If we compare nations based upon what is actually spent in the classroom I doubt the US ranks at #2. Lots of that $92K disappears into administration and overhead, lots of impediments that teachers face in the classroom come from administration, and from what I've been told by teachers a few impediments come from their own unions.
The whole science vs religion thing is a straw man. The idea of the rational unbiased scientist is also somewhat mythological. This history of the big bang theory, the current prevailing cosmological theory on the original of the universe, is quite insightful. The theory was offered by a Roman Catholic priest. Some of the leading scientists of the day dismissed this theory merely because it was developed by a priest, they dismissed it as "smelling of creationism".
If you want to make a claim that some group is anti-science it would be accurate to say that *some* churches may be so. The truth is that many other churches are perfectly fine with science. That scientific observations and discoveries are not in conflict with faith. Again, the whole notion of the universe originating in a big bang billions of years ago came from a priest. The western tradition of the scientific method was promoted by a bishop and other members of the clergy. The Roman Catholic church operates a world class observatory doing serious cosmological research in cooperation with other leading world class universities.
To say that religion is anti-science, well, that seems to display a mindset awfully similar to some preacher claiming that the earth was created six thousand years ago. Both comments delivered with absolute authority and passion, both comments being objectively and demonstrably false, both comments none the less held as as articles of *faith* of their respective mindsets. Reality if far more complicated than either of these mindsets believe.
An artificial release schedule, one tied to the calendar rather than bug fixes, can actually slow things down. It can cause a certain amount of disruption when a team is in the middle of taking care of a bug. It seems somewhat similar to having to put together a demo when you are in the middle implementing a feature. I'd say try for a monthly release but don't necessarily let that goal interrupt fixes underway, let in progress fixes delay the release when it makes sense to do so.
... at least they wouldn't have to worry about getting the idea past a bunch of environmentalists first.
Mohave Spaceport has legally mandated checks for desert tortoises that may have wandered onto the runway. I suppose the standard checks for foreign object debris on the runway are not enough and would somehow miss the tortoises.
Older users are more likely to have a Yahoo address as their primary email, etc.
Real geezers telnet into the server and read their email using MH. If the command line was good enough in 1982, then it is good enough today.
Joking aside, ssh and pine(*) work really well. If the content of the email is heavily using some sort of markup language and graphics it is probably not an email I need or want. On some days I think ssh/pine would be more efficient than a modern GUI-based client.
For those unfamiliar with text email clients think of them as twitter without a 140 character limit.;-)
(*) Substitue alpine, mutt, whatever if you prefer.
Except that your smartphone with an always-on GPS-tracking app, recording a data point every 5 feet, will last at most 2 hours on a full battery.
Actually I've experimented with my iPhone and it lasted about 5 hours while hiking. The app is targeting outdoor activities and may not sample as frequently as you suggest. Perhaps you are referring to an app that is oriented towards those driving around in a car.
My Garmin handheld doing just that, with a better precision, will last 15 hours on a couple of AA batteries. And when they're over, I can just swap another pair in. And I can use it under the rain. With the gloves on.
I've considered getting a Garmin on many occasions, especially when on sale at REI. However I generally navigate with paper (waterproof) topo map and mechanical compass. The iPhone is generally powered off and only turned on to take photos. And as a contingency I mark campsites, where I parked, etc in the GPS app. Photos are GPS tagged so if there is something/someplace of interest I may want to return to I can just take a picture. I suppose I could mark the paper map with a pencil but I don't bother. I suppose you could characterize my behavior as using electronics for entertainment and casual purposes in wilderness areas, but only using them as backups for more serious things. Given such usage I haven't bothered with the Garmin. I've used the iPhone on 4 day trips and returned with plenty of photos and battery life.
I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.
There is an app for that, seriously there are multiple apps for that. Decent maps built-in. More detailed ones, including topo, available via free download.
Not all functionality has to come from Apple, or whoever is doing the OS and built-in apps, some things can be left to third parties.
Go into a specific business field that uses math in a non-accounting manner: product development and marketing.
"Product development" in the specification sense, not in the implementation sense. The determining of needs and wants of potential customers and coming up with products and product features that meet this need. Believe it or not the way people are taught to do this sort of thing in business school actually involves mathematical modeling, sampling and statistics, etc. I was shocked and thrilled to see how much advanced math is used in graduate level marketing classes.
no need to disable the dnt. by installing or agreeing to using any google service you'll give them permission to track you. they'll need to start giving the cookie notice anyways, they'll wrap a nice long eula to it and be done with it.
I wonder what is in Android's EULA, if Google has some tracking authorization in there?
Google makes it money from tracking users and selling customized ads. Google would look bad if they didn't honor DNT. Microsoft is setting the standard that DNT should be on by default, which reduces the ability for Google to track you all over the web. MS is not an ad company, so they really won't feel this as much.
Google will probably offer a handy little add-on that will "enhance" your IE10 experience. It will probably disable DNT or work around it in some manner, the EULA will mention this, the user will click yes I agree.
It's nice on the one hand that Microsoft is making the privacy option the default, but if DNT is unenforceable, wouldn't "DNT by default" give certain entities an excuse to ignore the DNT flag by default?
Expect browser add-ons to work around this. Their EULAs will mention this so there may be no DNT enforceability issue, the user clicked yes. Google, Facebook, etc will surely have various add-ons that will "enhance" the IE10 experience.
That could be useful in many freshwater locales as well. Providing it doesn't generate too much turbulence and disturb the inevitable silt at the bottom of many lakes, ponds, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You're relying on sophism -- truths are truths ...
Nope. That phrase was immediately followed by an example of heliocentrism being true before telescopes were invented and before Copernicus brought forward his theory, before man existed for that matter. Look at my original statement: "Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing." Nature's truths involve both the observable and the unobservable by current technology, the testable and the untestable by current technology. Science's truth are a subset of nature's truths.
... "not in conflict" is different from "compatible".
If you do not understand the distinction between the two then I suggest you think about it some more. Concentrate on the notion of two things being mutually exclusive. Things that are mutually exclusive are not necessarily compatible.
You can't simply say, "No, that is not my opinion" if I have proved it, you have to refute the logic.
There is nothing for me to refute if your logic addresses something I did not say. If you feel that I am rephrasing and repeating myself you might consider that I am simply trying to have you comprehend that you have misunderstood what I have said, that your logic is addressing a misrepresentation of what I have said. I'd be happy to address your logic should you decide to apply it to what I have actually said. Until then ...
You get what you pay for
Time is money.
The time you put into your studies is also a payment. Its merely a payment that does not go into the school's bank account.
Some rare individuals are perfectly capable of a university level education through their own independent studies. That said, most people who believe they are capable of doing so are incorrect. One of many reasons is that they will cherry pick topics to study and pass on some topic that they have no interest in, this is often a mistake. Most people need the structure of a formal degree program, or something comparable, to get the broader understanding that they actually should have.
... Someone coming up with a field-changing idea without being a professional scientist, and potentially having a religious agenda... I can see how this would be easy to dismiss ...
The priest was also a mathematician, astronomer and a professor of physics. I think that counts as a professional. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
All that was said is that some truth are not currently observable. Being unobservable by current technology and understanding hardly makes something true or untrue.
Your first sentence contradicts the latter directly.
Nope. Truths are truths. Whether humans are capable of seeing the truth changes nothing. For example the heliocentric nature of our solar system was the truth, before and after the invention of telescopes, before and after Copernicus brought forth his theory. Scientific understanding merely recognized a formerly undiscovered truth.
A Formal Restatement
Which is another straw man saying things I have not. Again, what I wrote was:
"Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing. Science and religion answer different types of questions. Science aims to answer questions regarding the "mechanics" of the universe. Religions aims to answer questions related to the intent and the wishes of a deity. Some churches argue that these two types of questions are mutually exclusive and thus there is no conflict between science and religion."
Premise: If Science and Religion deal with different subjects, they are compatible.
Again, you fundamentally misunderstand my statement. What I said is that some churches believe science and religion are mutually exclusive and therefore not in conflict. That is something quite different from being compatible.
Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing.
Science is a method for finding truth about the observable universe.
You are aware that you merely rephrased my point?
If you admit truths that are not scientific you have just redefined truth in a way that is not compatible with the scientific method.
Now you are constructing a straw man. All that was said is that some truth are not currently observable. Being unobservable by current technology and understanding hardly makes something true or untrue.
It should be noted that you also fail at logic: the existence of a church with a certain set of beliefs is your premise, not a conclusion, and even were it true that any or all churches were compatible with science, you cannot logically conclude that no conflict exists.
Its not a premise, its not a conclusion, it is a simple fact that some churches state that there is no conflict between scientific findings and religion. Science is about observing and understanding the working of the universe. Religion is about morality, the intent or wishes of a deity, etc. That there is no conflict because there is no overlap. That no understanding of the workings or the origin of the universe, of the human body, etc addresses religious topics like morality, deities, souls, etc.
;-)
The fact that some churches believe as described above is an observable phenomena. Its even testable and repeatable. Hence it is a scientific finding.
Science is an objective, empirical method of finding truth. Religious believers have either an alternate definition of truth, or an alternate method of determining it.
Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing. Science and religion answer different types of questions. Science aims to answer questions regarding the "mechanics" of the universe. Religions aims to answer questions related to the intent and the wishes of a deity. Some churches argue that these two types of questions are mutually exclusive and thus there is no conflict between science and religion.
The [Big Bang] theory was offered by a Roman Catholic priest. Some of the leading scientists of the day dismissed this theory merely because it was developed by a priest, they dismissed it as "smelling of creationism".
Not because it came from a priest, but because the church was specifically trying to frame it as proof of creation. Lamaitre had to write the pope telling him the science implied no such thing and asking him to please stop saying it did. Basically, even while being a priest, Lamaitre was wise enough to keep religion out of his science.
I do not believe that would "exonerate" those scientists. Whether the pope liked or disliked a scientific theory is irrelevant from a scientific perspective. The fact that they made such a comment still indicates an inherent hostility to the theory due to its possible alignment with a theology. They seem to have acted very much like that pope, forming an opinion on a scientific theory due to possible alignment with a theology, merely of the opposite "polarity".
The union problem is not necessarily teacher salary. There might be a problem where some teachers make little to no contribution to benefits like health care and retirement, but that is a really complicated issue that can't be generalized. Contracts can vary from place to place, some reasonable, some not. The real union problem is probably union support for teachers who are not good teachers. The unions no longer seem to be the guardians of their craft, enforcing their own high standards of quality upon their members. Unions used to kick out members who couldn't perform to high standards. Today some claim that some union leadership is essentially a part of the educational bureaucracy protecting the status quo.
At $91,700 per pupil from kindergarten through twelfth grade, the U.S. is outspent only by Switzerland in the education arena. Cash is not a problem.
Lots of money that doesn't seem to make it to the classrooms. If we compare nations based upon what is actually spent in the classroom I doubt the US ranks at #2. Lots of that $92K disappears into administration and overhead, lots of impediments that teachers face in the classroom come from administration, and from what I've been told by teachers a few impediments come from their own unions.
The whole science vs religion thing is a straw man. The idea of the rational unbiased scientist is also somewhat mythological. This history of the big bang theory, the current prevailing cosmological theory on the original of the universe, is quite insightful. The theory was offered by a Roman Catholic priest. Some of the leading scientists of the day dismissed this theory merely because it was developed by a priest, they dismissed it as "smelling of creationism".
If you want to make a claim that some group is anti-science it would be accurate to say that *some* churches may be so. The truth is that many other churches are perfectly fine with science. That scientific observations and discoveries are not in conflict with faith. Again, the whole notion of the universe originating in a big bang billions of years ago came from a priest. The western tradition of the scientific method was promoted by a bishop and other members of the clergy. The Roman Catholic church operates a world class observatory doing serious cosmological research in cooperation with other leading world class universities.
To say that religion is anti-science, well, that seems to display a mindset awfully similar to some preacher claiming that the earth was created six thousand years ago. Both comments delivered with absolute authority and passion, both comments being objectively and demonstrably false, both comments none the less held as as articles of *faith* of their respective mindsets. Reality if far more complicated than either of these mindsets believe.
An artificial release schedule, one tied to the calendar rather than bug fixes, can actually slow things down. It can cause a certain amount of disruption when a team is in the middle of taking care of a bug. It seems somewhat similar to having to put together a demo when you are in the middle implementing a feature. I'd say try for a monthly release but don't necessarily let that goal interrupt fixes underway, let in progress fixes delay the release when it makes sense to do so.
... at least they wouldn't have to worry about getting the idea past a bunch of environmentalists first.
Mohave Spaceport has legally mandated checks for desert tortoises that may have wandered onto the runway. I suppose the standard checks for foreign object debris on the runway are not enough and would somehow miss the tortoises.
Older users are more likely to have a Yahoo address as their primary email, etc.
Real geezers telnet into the server and read their email using MH. If the command line was good enough in 1982, then it is good enough today.
Joking aside, ssh and pine(*) work really well. If the content of the email is heavily using some sort of markup language and graphics it is probably not an email I need or want. On some days I think ssh/pine would be more efficient than a modern GUI-based client.
;-)
For those unfamiliar with text email clients think of them as twitter without a 140 character limit.
(*) Substitue alpine, mutt, whatever if you prefer.
Except that your smartphone with an always-on GPS-tracking app, recording a data point every 5 feet, will last at most 2 hours on a full battery.
Actually I've experimented with my iPhone and it lasted about 5 hours while hiking. The app is targeting outdoor activities and may not sample as frequently as you suggest. Perhaps you are referring to an app that is oriented towards those driving around in a car.
My Garmin handheld doing just that, with a better precision, will last 15 hours on a couple of AA batteries. And when they're over, I can just swap another pair in. And I can use it under the rain. With the gloves on.
I've considered getting a Garmin on many occasions, especially when on sale at REI. However I generally navigate with paper (waterproof) topo map and mechanical compass. The iPhone is generally powered off and only turned on to take photos. And as a contingency I mark campsites, where I parked, etc in the GPS app. Photos are GPS tagged so if there is something/someplace of interest I may want to return to I can just take a picture. I suppose I could mark the paper map with a pencil but I don't bother. I suppose you could characterize my behavior as using electronics for entertainment and casual purposes in wilderness areas, but only using them as backups for more serious things. Given such usage I haven't bothered with the Garmin. I've used the iPhone on 4 day trips and returned with plenty of photos and battery life.
I hope the other Apps the GP referred to aren't as wasteful with storage space.
The one I use allows you to choose the detail level on the downloaded maps.
I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.
There is an app for that, seriously there are multiple apps for that. Decent maps built-in. More detailed ones, including topo, available via free download.
Not all functionality has to come from Apple, or whoever is doing the OS and built-in apps, some things can be left to third parties.
Go into a specific business field that uses math in a non-accounting manner: product development and marketing.
"Product development" in the specification sense, not in the implementation sense. The determining of needs and wants of potential customers and coming up with products and product features that meet this need. Believe it or not the way people are taught to do this sort of thing in business school actually involves mathematical modeling, sampling and statistics, etc. I was shocked and thrilled to see how much advanced math is used in graduate level marketing classes.
She can still teach. Aren't there schools with less bureaucracy and administrative nonsense; private schools, charter school, etc?
no need to disable the dnt. by installing or agreeing to using any google service you'll give them permission to track you. they'll need to start giving the cookie notice anyways, they'll wrap a nice long eula to it and be done with it.
I wonder what is in Android's EULA, if Google has some tracking authorization in there?
MS seems to have thought about it. No plugins will work in Windows RT or the Metro browser. Just the desktop IE in regular Windows 8.
Can the user enable plugins? I fear this will be one of the few things that the average user will learn how to do.
Do Not Track is only when you're anonymous, afaik. So if you sign in, you waive that right.
I'm thinking of some sort of add-on that is separate from various google services like gmail, etc.
As far as an add-on, the default experience in Windows 8 is metro, which is plug-in free.
That is a very good point. However I fear enabling plug-ins is one of the things that the average user will learn how to do.
Google makes it money from tracking users and selling customized ads. Google would look bad if they didn't honor DNT. Microsoft is setting the standard that DNT should be on by default, which reduces the ability for Google to track you all over the web. MS is not an ad company, so they really won't feel this as much.
Google will probably offer a handy little add-on that will "enhance" your IE10 experience. It will probably disable DNT or work around it in some manner, the EULA will mention this, the user will click yes I agree.
It's nice on the one hand that Microsoft is making the privacy option the default, but if DNT is unenforceable, wouldn't "DNT by default" give certain entities an excuse to ignore the DNT flag by default?
Expect browser add-ons to work around this. Their EULAs will mention this so there may be no DNT enforceability issue, the user clicked yes. Google, Facebook, etc will surely have various add-ons that will "enhance" the IE10 experience.
Shouldn't that read NOAA instead of NASA at the end of the article?
Probably, but NASA does have some plans for aquatic ROVs. Really, really remotely operated ... as is someplace like the moon Europa.
That could be useful in many freshwater locales as well. Providing it doesn't generate too much turbulence and disturb the inevitable silt at the bottom of many lakes, ponds, etc.