I still maintain that if it is a great offense to believe in the existence of God (which cannot be tested), then it is equally a great offense to believe definitely in the inverse of something that cannot be tested.
There's a BIG difference between "believing definitely" in something that cannot be tested and "refusing to reject the null hypothesis". Religious people often get these two confused when talking to atheists. If I can't ever reject the null hypothesis, then the actual truth value of the proposition is indistinguishable from false. That's close enough to false for practical purposes, and almost always what materialists mean by "false".
I have known some people who are regarded, and rightly so, as leaders in their profession who when approached about religion/politics become raving lunatics.
The particular history of slavery in the UK is immaterial. That was just an example of how poll tests can be abused. Poll tests are just a back door way to remove the franchise from people who are already marginalized. It gives even greater incentive for the rich and powerful to limit access to education.
22/7 is misleading, in that people often think it's an exact value. I actually had math teachers in middle school who claimed as much, and refused to understand the term "transcendental number".
Remember, remember, Eternal September. You could expect better unmoderated discussions on USENET prior to 1993 than you could at any point in/.'s history.
I suppose you don't remember why poll tests were a bad idea. Why should the vote of a wealthy land owner count more than that of a newly enfranchised former slave?
That is a great blog. I was worried when he posted his "in recovery" message, but I'm glad he's still posting occasionally. A dozen posts a month is really not sustainable.
That won't stop them from trying. This Supreme Court has flagrantly ignored the actual text of the bill of rights in the past, I'll be surprised if they have any trouble ignoring implicitly granted rights as well.
Lets use a different water based argument shall we? 20 liters of pure water, if ingested in 10 minutes, will cause water intoxication, However, no doctor in their right mind would suggest that 1000 people each consuming 1/1000th of 20 liters in 10 minutes would result in 1 person suffering water intoxication just because of their consumption.
This is irrelevant because carcinogenesis is completely unlike water intoxication. Let me say this again, carcinogenesis is a stochastic process. If that's too hard for you, I'll rephrase it. Carcinogenesis is a random process.
It's like playing the lottery. If you buy 1000 tickets, you have X chance of winning. If 1000 people each buy 1 ticket, that group of 1000 has the same chance of containing a winner.
Does that make sense to you now? I'll go a little further.
In order for a carcinogen to damage DNA, that carcinogen has to come in contact with your DNA. The probability of two molecular species interacting is directly proportional to their concentration. Lowering the concentration of that carcinogen lowers the probability of that interaction, but as long as the concentration is non-zero, the probability of DNA damage is also going to be non-zero.
Now, that doesn't mean that every carcinogen is going to behave this way. Some carcinogens are metabolized by the body, which will lead to non-linear results. But as a first approximation, the low dose linear model is the standard for risk assessment. If you propose that there is a threshold effect, then it's up to you to demonstrate that it exists.
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
Yes, that's a very good illustration of just how unlike drowning carcinogenesis is. Drowning is deterministic, if you hold someone under water for 5 minutes they will die. If you expose someone to a carcinogenic treatment (say, gamma irradiation or inhalation of formaldehyde fumes) for a certain amount of time all you can predict is the probability that they will get cancer. See the difference?
Carcinogenesis is generally stochastic. That means the probability is directly proportional to the dose. When you lower the dose but increase the population you end up with the same risk. So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 people will cause one case of cancer.
All of these nations want to put astronauts in space. They can not afford to build their own launch systems
They're going to be paying for the construction of a launch system anyway. Things don't get cheaper when you pay a middlle man to do it. The middle man pockets the profit, and you end up paying more for the same thing you could have done yourself.
If what you're getting at is that a dozen small nations can't individually afford their own lauch platforms, privatization is a dumb way to solve that problem. Those twelve nations could pool their resources and fund a non-profit foundation to build the launch system. That way they could all use the launch system and avoid paying extra use fees.
I agree. But that doesn't mean it's going to be profitable to get there.
No where, did I suggest that space was about bringing things back.
If you expect Earth people to pay space companies in Earth dollars, then you had better be proving some useful good or service to the Earth. What exactly do you propose?
The ability to launch humans CHEAPLY, put up stations in orbit, put colonies on the moon or mars, will lead to other nations buying the services.
Why do you assume it's cheaper for nations to pay a middleman than it is for them to send up astronauts themselves? The middle man is going to pocket some of the cost as profit. That's money you can't put back into your space programm.
LSD "flashbacks" are nothing but vivid memories. Have you ever smelled a smell or heard a tune that transported you back to another place and time? If so, then you've had a flashback. These are not medical events, and I speak from experience.
The safety of LSD is far better established than many FDA approved drugs. They've studied it so much looking for negative effects that we know all of them by now. It's non-addictive and non-toxic. It doesn't increase the risk of schizophrenia. I don't think there's any question that it's safer than, e.g., Adderall.
Depends on what you mean by "significantly impaired". Impairment is statistically significant at.02-.03 BAC. If you look at accident statistics, you see the same thing. Just.02 is sufficient to raise your chances of getting in an accident.
I'm not for draconian DUI regulation though. What's the point of being alive if you can't have a little reckless fun once in a while? A much more enlightened way to handle the situation would be to encourage the construction and use of public transportation in the US.
Nonsense. Just because someone can solve a specific instance of an NP hard problem in a finite amount of time doesn't mean he's capable of solving NP hard problems in P time.
Slashdot Mirror
I still maintain that if it is a great offense to believe in the existence of God (which cannot be tested), then it is equally a great offense to believe definitely in the inverse of something that cannot be tested.
There's a BIG difference between "believing definitely" in something that cannot be tested and "refusing to reject the null hypothesis". Religious people often get these two confused when talking to atheists. If I can't ever reject the null hypothesis, then the actual truth value of the proposition is indistinguishable from false. That's close enough to false for practical purposes, and almost always what materialists mean by "false".
I have known some people who are regarded, and rightly so, as leaders in their profession who when approached about religion/politics become raving lunatics.
Oh, do you know many politicians?
The particular history of slavery in the UK is immaterial. That was just an example of how poll tests can be abused. Poll tests are just a back door way to remove the franchise from people who are already marginalized. It gives even greater incentive for the rich and powerful to limit access to education.
22/7 is misleading, in that people often think it's an exact value. I actually had math teachers in middle school who claimed as much, and refused to understand the term "transcendental number".
Remember, remember, Eternal September. You could expect better unmoderated discussions on USENET prior to 1993 than you could at any point in /.'s history.
I suppose you don't remember why poll tests were a bad idea. Why should the vote of a wealthy land owner count more than that of a newly enfranchised former slave?
Star Control 2 is a fantastic update to the Starflight formula. Been a long time though, we could use another.
That is a great blog. I was worried when he posted his "in recovery" message, but I'm glad he's still posting occasionally. A dozen posts a month is really not sustainable.
Toejam & Earl is a roguelike actually.
It's true. Even Discworld wasn't as funny, as a game.
How is that different from any religion?
That won't stop them from trying. This Supreme Court has flagrantly ignored the actual text of the bill of rights in the past, I'll be surprised if they have any trouble ignoring implicitly granted rights as well.
Lets use a different water based argument shall we? 20 liters of pure water, if ingested in 10 minutes, will cause water intoxication, However, no doctor in their right mind would suggest that 1000 people each consuming 1/1000th of 20 liters in 10 minutes would result in 1 person suffering water intoxication just because of their consumption.
This is irrelevant because carcinogenesis is completely unlike water intoxication. Let me say this again, carcinogenesis is a stochastic process. If that's too hard for you, I'll rephrase it. Carcinogenesis is a random process.
It's like playing the lottery. If you buy 1000 tickets, you have X chance of winning. If 1000 people each buy 1 ticket, that group of 1000 has the same chance of containing a winner.
Does that make sense to you now? I'll go a little further.
In order for a carcinogen to damage DNA, that carcinogen has to come in contact with your DNA. The probability of two molecular species interacting is directly proportional to their concentration. Lowering the concentration of that carcinogen lowers the probability of that interaction, but as long as the concentration is non-zero, the probability of DNA damage is also going to be non-zero.
Now, that doesn't mean that every carcinogen is going to behave this way. Some carcinogens are metabolized by the body, which will lead to non-linear results. But as a first approximation, the low dose linear model is the standard for risk assessment. If you propose that there is a threshold effect, then it's up to you to demonstrate that it exists.
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
Yes, that's a very good illustration of just how unlike drowning carcinogenesis is. Drowning is deterministic, if you hold someone under water for 5 minutes they will die. If you expose someone to a carcinogenic treatment (say, gamma irradiation or inhalation of formaldehyde fumes) for a certain amount of time all you can predict is the probability that they will get cancer. See the difference?
Carcinogenesis is generally stochastic. That means the probability is directly proportional to the dose. When you lower the dose but increase the population you end up with the same risk. So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 people will cause one case of cancer.
All of these nations want to put astronauts in space. They can not afford to build their own launch systems
They're going to be paying for the construction of a launch system anyway. Things don't get cheaper when you pay a middlle man to do it. The middle man pockets the profit, and you end up paying more for the same thing you could have done yourself.
If what you're getting at is that a dozen small nations can't individually afford their own lauch platforms, privatization is a dumb way to solve that problem. Those twelve nations could pool their resources and fund a non-profit foundation to build the launch system. That way they could all use the launch system and avoid paying extra use fees.
Or, on the other hand, do. =D
BTW y u no login?
We need off this rock.
I agree. But that doesn't mean it's going to be profitable to get there.
No where, did I suggest that space was about bringing things back.
If you expect Earth people to pay space companies in Earth dollars, then you had better be proving some useful good or service to the Earth. What exactly do you propose?
The ability to launch humans CHEAPLY, put up stations in orbit, put colonies on the moon or mars, will lead to other nations buying the services.
Why do you assume it's cheaper for nations to pay a middleman than it is for them to send up astronauts themselves? The middle man is going to pocket some of the cost as profit. That's money you can't put back into your space programm.
LSD "flashbacks" are nothing but vivid memories. Have you ever smelled a smell or heard a tune that transported you back to another place and time? If so, then you've had a flashback. These are not medical events, and I speak from experience.
The safety of LSD is far better established than many FDA approved drugs. They've studied it so much looking for negative effects that we know all of them by now. It's non-addictive and non-toxic. It doesn't increase the risk of schizophrenia. I don't think there's any question that it's safer than, e.g., Adderall.
Depends on what you mean by "significantly impaired". Impairment is statistically significant at .02-.03 BAC. If you look at accident statistics, you see the same thing. Just .02 is sufficient to raise your chances of getting in an accident.
I'm not for draconian DUI regulation though. What's the point of being alive if you can't have a little reckless fun once in a while? A much more enlightened way to handle the situation would be to encourage the construction and use of public transportation in the US.
The only possible application of a second test is to prove the first test wrong. Why would the police want to do that?
Yet another Schedule 1 drug with actual medical applications. Is there any part of the war on drug users that isn't based on lies?
This is worse than fraud. When you're defrauded, you're only out dollars. Being falsely accused of a DUI can ruin a person's life.
Nonsense. Just because someone can solve a specific instance of an NP hard problem in a finite amount of time doesn't mean he's capable of solving NP hard problems in P time.
Ahem. Silver Surfer.