Teaching logic is vital to any form of critical reasoning or argument construction. It would have been an excellent idea except that it doesn't fit with the current 'teach you what we want you to believe' curriculum. Be it the current 'science is everything' position, or pastafarianism, the approach fails when it attempts to dictate what to think.
Logic itself is insufficient as it can only confirm the logical validity of an opinion, never its accuracy. I'll illustrate by following your reasoning: you hypothesise that we can improve reasoning by examining bias; you assert that humans can come to conclusions without bias; you assume the rules of mathematics apply (reasonable I agree); you apply those rules to a mathematical problem to propose that a statement is 'simply true'; you extrapolate that we therefore can devise statements that are incontrovertible (that is, 'not false'); thus you prove your assertion; then extrapolate to prove your hypothesis for all statements made without bias.
Logic demonstrates the validity of your reasoning, showing each progression. It does not demonstrate that the final position itself is correct, only that it is not incorrect. Logic may demonstrate that I am not incorrect in believing evolution, pastafarianism, or love, but not that the statement 'all should worship his noodleage' is correct.
I think that if people knew how to think, you would have more of the PETA etc groups as everyone would have their own, logically valid positions on every issue. The issue isn't the logical process (although that weeds out some pseudo-scientific positions), but that logic requires a final position that is either true or false, and we have chosen to reject the idea that any source may dictate or define absolute truth. This requires us to 'prove' the absolute truth on any issue, which is only possible by testing every hypothesis - which is impossible.
Improving logic skills would be excellent, but until there is proven absolute truth (currently only possible in maths), all logic can show is that you are validly uncertain.
For law school I use both - I take notes by hand, while following the lecture material on the laptop with the ability to look up statutes or cases and quickly search to the point we are discussing. I like to be able to rearrange notes as you can on a computer, but printing them out to read, and having no fast diagram or sketch ability is a real annoyance.
Primarily though, I write out my notes because I can keep my hand-writing speed just fast enough to get down a decent answer (~12 pages) in a 2 hour exam. I can type much faster, but until my university (Bond) moves to online exams I just can't afford not to keep up the hand-writing.
Why are we all thinking the new series should take place after the movie? The movie did end the story, as it was meant to.
Firefly as a series is something you can continue with further events before those of the movie. Further explore the link between book and the alliance. Keep unpacking River. Include the odd clash between Jane and the others.
The real joy of Firefly is you have a universe combining sci-fi with a western and opening up options for just about any survival mission type plot (think Train). You can always chuck in more bad guys (who aren't really bad) and allies (who don't really help) to keep the gritty, everyone out for themselves feel that made the series so enjoyable.
My point is, one either supports the scientific method or one does not. There are no grey areas. Either its science, or its propaganda. It cannot be both.
Of course it can be both. <troll> just look at the debate on evolution (cf natural selection) </troll>
To use your analogy...
There is plenty of debate about the direction the fox went - we saw it run east, but someone else from a different point says the fox later turned west. This is why peer review is so important, and the methods used for peer review should be open and transparent.
Then there is the question whether the hound is actually going to follow the fox. We know they are similar, therefore must always run the same direction. If you think of any reasons they wouldn't run the same direction we won't consider them, because you disagreed with us about what direction the fox ran.
To add to the analogy, we have discovered that foxes tend to chase rabbits, and for a while we have had a rabbit farm to the east. We cut back on the farm, but hey, they are breeding like rabbits.
Now the real debate here is whether to kill all the rabbits. We won't discuss other options to killing the rabbits, because if you don't want to kill all the rabbits you clearly are denying that the fox ran east and must think the hound will run west.
And you wonder why people don't trust the scientific method?!?
Try using it.
In particular, try documenting your assumptions - you will be amazed at how much you re-think.
The solution to that, of course, is to roll around inside a giant hamster ball/zorb cloaking device! Watch out... i'll sneak up on you and ROLL YOU TO DEATH.
I don't mind reading a one page EULA. I don't have time to read and translate from legalese 60+ page documents (to be conservative), not to mention cross linked documents, every time I install a program / patch.
You AGREED TO THAT and now it has happened.
It is COMPLETELY legal and frankly fair.
<Troll>The same thing could be said about the Patriot Act.</Troll>
That shouldn't stop consumers standing up for a decent EULA, even if only the law firms cash in. imho at face value they have a case - having the contract (EULA) varied at a later date, preventing the service from being offered to specified customers seems to breach pretty standard principles of contract law.
That is true, however 'publication' for this purpose is very broad, including almost any public disclosure. This can, if the inventor is not careful, include testing the implementation / invention or discussing it with someone without a clear agreement of confidentiality (not necessarily in writing but that helps for evidence purposes).
As for the question, if a patent is granted with prior art that the patent office didn't consider, it is still prima facie valid. This means it will likely be cited as prior art if you attempt to patent a related invention in future; and the patent owner may still sue to enforce the rights / demand licenses etc.
Usually defence to patent infringement includes an allegation the patent is invalid (such as in this matter). This is also a common way around a patent cited as prior art to your related invention. Alternatively, an interested party (such as the EFF here) may apply to have the patent revoked on the same grounds.
I drink coffee in the morning to get rid of the last effects of alcohol the evening before, and drink alcohol in the evening to get rid of the last effects of the coffee in the morning....
So when you drink coffee all night cramming for an exam - of course the only logical solution is to drink copious amounts of alcohol in the morning. See Mum... I isnt' just a dum colledge student.
----- Never let your schooling interfere with your education.
Slashdot Mirror
Teaching logic is vital to any form of critical reasoning or argument construction. It would have been an excellent idea except that it doesn't fit with the current 'teach you what we want you to believe' curriculum. Be it the current 'science is everything' position, or pastafarianism, the approach fails when it attempts to dictate what to think.
Logic itself is insufficient as it can only confirm the logical validity of an opinion, never its accuracy. I'll illustrate by following your reasoning: you hypothesise that we can improve reasoning by examining bias; you assert that humans can come to conclusions without bias; you assume the rules of mathematics apply (reasonable I agree); you apply those rules to a mathematical problem to propose that a statement is 'simply true'; you extrapolate that we therefore can devise statements that are incontrovertible (that is, 'not false'); thus you prove your assertion; then extrapolate to prove your hypothesis for all statements made without bias.
Logic demonstrates the validity of your reasoning, showing each progression. It does not demonstrate that the final position itself is correct, only that it is not incorrect. Logic may demonstrate that I am not incorrect in believing evolution, pastafarianism, or love, but not that the statement 'all should worship his noodleage' is correct.
I think that if people knew how to think, you would have more of the PETA etc groups as everyone would have their own, logically valid positions on every issue. The issue isn't the logical process (although that weeds out some pseudo-scientific positions), but that logic requires a final position that is either true or false, and we have chosen to reject the idea that any source may dictate or define absolute truth. This requires us to 'prove' the absolute truth on any issue, which is only possible by testing every hypothesis - which is impossible.
Improving logic skills would be excellent, but until there is proven absolute truth (currently only possible in maths), all logic can show is that you are validly uncertain.
II - FAIL... no that is just two 1s - proceed.
No random number generator can survive creative interpretation.
For law school I use both - I take notes by hand, while following the lecture material on the laptop with the ability to look up statutes or cases and quickly search to the point we are discussing. I like to be able to rearrange notes as you can on a computer, but printing them out to read, and having no fast diagram or sketch ability is a real annoyance.
Primarily though, I write out my notes because I can keep my hand-writing speed just fast enough to get down a decent answer (~12 pages) in a 2 hour exam. I can type much faster, but until my university (Bond) moves to online exams I just can't afford not to keep up the hand-writing.
Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?
They did... but were removed by your ISP following a flurry of DMCA takedown notices.
yeah - who eats pizza???
For a second there I thought you were Richard Branson.
Easy enough in Java:
Wet_Paper_Bag.escape();
Format c:/
Solved.
M$ complying with the law is news.
Why are we all thinking the new series should take place after the movie? The movie did end the story, as it was meant to.
Firefly as a series is something you can continue with further events before those of the movie. Further explore the link between book and the alliance. Keep unpacking River. Include the odd clash between Jane and the others.
The real joy of Firefly is you have a universe combining sci-fi with a western and opening up options for just about any survival mission type plot (think Train). You can always chuck in more bad guys (who aren't really bad) and allies (who don't really help) to keep the gritty, everyone out for themselves feel that made the series so enjoyable.
So skiing in Tribes wasn't a glitch, but advanced physics research.
Hey wait a second! Isn't one of Slashdot's recurring themes copying != stealing?
You forgot part of your code - it should read:
if (!Microsoft) {copying != stealing}
else if (RIAA) {copying == fair use}
else if (USA) {copying == free speech}
else {BSOD?}
except Tom.
Support World Peace!
CORRECTION: Support WWW Police!
Method Patent or no, it won't overcome the prior art - the Tax department has been doing this for years.
My point is, one either supports the scientific method or one does not. There are no grey areas. Either its science, or its propaganda. It cannot be both.
Of course it can be both. <troll> just look at the debate on evolution (cf natural selection) </troll>
To use your analogy...
There is plenty of debate about the direction the fox went - we saw it run east, but someone else from a different point says the fox later turned west. This is why peer review is so important, and the methods used for peer review should be open and transparent.
Then there is the question whether the hound is actually going to follow the fox. We know they are similar, therefore must always run the same direction. If you think of any reasons they wouldn't run the same direction we won't consider them, because you disagreed with us about what direction the fox ran.
To add to the analogy, we have discovered that foxes tend to chase rabbits, and for a while we have had a rabbit farm to the east. We cut back on the farm, but hey, they are breeding like rabbits.
Now the real debate here is whether to kill all the rabbits. We won't discuss other options to killing the rabbits, because if you don't want to kill all the rabbits you clearly are denying that the fox ran east and must think the hound will run west.
And you wonder why people don't trust the scientific method?!? Try using it. In particular, try documenting your assumptions - you will be amazed at how much you re-think.
The solution to that, of course, is to roll around inside a giant hamster ball/zorb cloaking device! Watch out... i'll sneak up on you and ROLL YOU TO DEATH.
Taking rick-rolling to a whole new level.
So where is the incentive to earn?
WTF is a "pseudo trilogy" anyway?
The Matrix. I swear it was only one movie, but everyone still calls it a trilogy.
I don't mind reading a one page EULA. I don't have time to read and translate from legalese 60+ page documents (to be conservative), not to mention cross linked documents, every time I install a program / patch.
You AGREED TO THAT and now it has happened. It is COMPLETELY legal and frankly fair.
<Troll>The same thing could be said about the Patriot Act.</Troll>
That shouldn't stop consumers standing up for a decent EULA, even if only the law firms cash in. imho at face value they have a case - having the contract (EULA) varied at a later date, preventing the service from being offered to specified customers seems to breach pretty standard principles of contract law.
That is true, however 'publication' for this purpose is very broad, including almost any public disclosure. This can, if the inventor is not careful, include testing the implementation / invention or discussing it with someone without a clear agreement of confidentiality (not necessarily in writing but that helps for evidence purposes).
As for the question, if a patent is granted with prior art that the patent office didn't consider, it is still prima facie valid. This means it will likely be cited as prior art if you attempt to patent a related invention in future; and the patent owner may still sue to enforce the rights / demand licenses etc.
Usually defence to patent infringement includes an allegation the patent is invalid (such as in this matter). This is also a common way around a patent cited as prior art to your related invention. Alternatively, an interested party (such as the EFF here) may apply to have the patent revoked on the same grounds.
I drink coffee in the morning to get rid of the last effects of alcohol the evening before, and drink alcohol in the evening to get rid of the last effects of the coffee in the morning....
So when you drink coffee all night cramming for an exam - of course the only logical solution is to drink copious amounts of alcohol in the morning.
See Mum... I isnt' just a dum colledge student.
-----
Never let your schooling interfere with your education.
Correlation isn't causation, but do realize that when you have an avian that floats on water and quacks, you are probably observing a duck.
Or something made of wood.
Such as a Witch.