I would imagine that it is possible to find a band of time over which radiation has decreased by 100, but how useful is it as a measure? Does it really matter that an x-ray machine emits 100x less over the course of a lifetime, or even a decade? If the dosage was so great a decade ago that it is still significant in dosage calculations then that is what we should be concerned about, not what the exposure is today.
Classic Berne enshrines "fair use"* - US copyright (as many have discovered) does not. Berne does NOT copyright data, only structured data - in that specific structure.
*Fair use is generally taken as** 1 article of a journal (or chapter of a book) or 10% of the complete content, whichever is the shorter, 1 minute of audio, or 10 seconds of video, where more is permitted if necessary for the task of review or legitimate study. Fair use ALSO enshrines Common Law's "Reasonableness". Where an act is considered "Reasonable", it is automatically fair use.
**Doesn't necessarily mean the convention states these precise values, this is what it's taken as meaning.
Classic Berne is good for 50 years for books and music, 25 years for journals, and I think only 10 years for generic structured data. Could be wrong. The increases are add-ons to the convention and not part of the original convention itself.
A suspicion requires only proof that the person does indeed suspect that. A -rational- suspicion requires proof that there is a -rational- basis for that suspicion. In neither case is proof required that the suspicion is correct.
When the statement is purposefully provided without evidence and the person posting it should have known better, it is a clear, self evident troll.
Evidence can be implicit and in the form of context, you have supplied none. As such, it is context-free and says nothing.
AGW is debatable. There are dissenting scientists.
Find some with any standing in one of either planetary science or environmental chemistry. I'll make it easy - you can't. AGW is not debated in these fields, it's established science. There are NO dissenting scientists outside of those fields in which the dissenter is a mere layperson.
So your definitive is not shared by everyone.
It is shared by everyone whose opinions are of the least interest or significance in the matter.
It is also a fact in the philosophy of science that scientific facts are never 100% conclusive.
Science is not a philosophy, philosophy is a science. There are no facts in science, only observations.
Scientific theories are also disproven all the time.
Actually, no they're not. Science isn't about proof or disproof. It is a methodology in which the simplest theory that explains everything of interest is preferred. The others are not deemed false, they're deemed to not be preferred. Your ignorance of science explains why you're a climate cynic - you lack any comprehension.
The people arguing against AGW are also using logic, at least some of them are, and have scientific data to back their conclusions.
Show me. Again, I'll make it easy - there is none to show.
Even if we all die, for science fetishists especially, it should matter how we live, for we won't live forever.
I would contend that the living dead aren't alive to live, that a polluted waste tip isn't life and that your attitude condemns billions to exist merely as zombies. Yes, it should matter how we live, and I say we should live in the best realistically achievable world, not the third-rate slum you want us to live in.
I would also contend that we are capable of living forever, we are nothing more than bits of data in biological computers and data has no sell-by date.
The last statement is very much a troll. It is meant to illicit a response.
A question is meant to illicit a response, too, so your claim has no validity. The two have no relationship to one another. The statement was certainly angry, possibly inflammatory, but it was nonetheless truthful (neurologists have established beyond all reasonable doubt that republicanism is legitimized xenophobia). The only question was whether the truthfulness was deliberate. (A knowingly valid statement that incidentally offends cannot be a troll, an incidentally valid statement that knowingly offends IS a troll.)
Not signing onto agreements then peddling stolen goods is also bullying other countries with the US' insane views on patents and copyright. Berne is perfectly reasonable and fair, the predecessor to WIPO was largely fair, indeed EU rules on copyright and patents are almost entirely intelligent.
Apparently, a reactor not too far along the coast had just finished building far higher sea walls and substantially better safety features as demanded by the engineers. Fukushima might have stopped working even with the add-ons, but it wouldn't have catastrophically failed. Ultimately, it did so because those running it were cheap. Nor were reactors the only places with adequate sea defenses.
It is likely that in some dinosaurs that both were present. In other cases, it may be that feathers were present first, then scales replaced them when shed - like adult teeth replace milk teeth. Also, because it's the same gene, a change in environmental conditions may cause feathers to appear in dinosaurs in which they would not otherwise do so -- once the mutations necessary have arisen, of course. One case study is proof that the mutations existed at that time and is a strong indication that feathered dinos existed prior to that time, but we've insufficient evidence to say definitely if this was a feathered dino in the general case, only the specific case.
Already pointed out that it is not the statements that matter but the qualifiers that apply to the process of formulating them (and the difficulty of judging whether those qualifiers apply, given we can't read minds - yet).
There is no "other side of the aisle", at least in the US, UK, or any other country on this planet. And I didn't say ALL Republicans were guilty (most != all), nor did I specify that Democrats were any better (they aren't, I could just as easily have said most Democrats are frothing lunatics - it would have been just as considered, just as rational and just as accurate).
It's a considered, rational opinion of mine based on the best-available data. Ergo, it is not a troll. An IDENTICAL statement made by anyone thinking purely emotionally rather than rationally WOULD be a troll.
To ban trolling is, in truth, to ban irrational lashing out, to ban unthinking malice and to ban unconsidered offensive statements. The qualifiers matter, it is the qualifiers and NOT the statements themselves that determine if something is a troll.
Just as the truth cannot be slander or libel, a considered, rational opinion cannot be a troll.
Therefore, the first statement (which is certainly considered, rational and true) cannot be a troll.
The second statement - that depends. If indeed you have offered evidence of racism, it would be a considered, rational opinion. If you have not, then it would not be. The statement would be a troll ONLY in the second case. A statement, in and of itself, deprived of context, cannot be judged either a troll or not.
The third statement is extreme, certainly, but again it depends on whether it is rational and considered. The evidence for AGW is definitive and I'd certainly agree that anyone not embracing it is making a choice that has nothing to do with rational or logical thought. That doesn't make it mental illness, though. Greed is inefficient but greedy industrialists aren't mentally ill, just very stupid. If, however, the scientist is aware of a link between denialism and mental illness, then it is a rational, considered view and ergo not a troll.
The final statement is definitely true, but being true is not sufficient. If the statement was made on emotional, rather than rational, grounds then it was a troll. If it was rational, rather than emotional, then it was not.
You are conflating angry speech with trolling, the two are not the same.
How? There's a world of difference between debate (where it is implied that both sides are listening and responding in a considered manner) and trolling (where it is implied at least one side is neither listening nor considering). I have reached the conclusion America knows bugger all about debates - and, no, that is not trolling because I am most certainly listening to the arguments put forward and have indeed reached a considered, rational conclusion. Just as it is impossible for the truth to be libel, it is impossible for a considered evaluation to be a troll.
However, one needs to be careful. The same words by someone who did NOT listen and/or who did NOT perform a considered evaluation WOULD be a troll. It is not the words that make it so, it is the process by which they are reached. It would be extremely hard for a court of law to determine the mental process by which a statement is formulated, unless fMRI has progressed further than I'm aware of -- unless Arizona is willing to accept what is believed at present to meet legal requirements.
Once it is possible to actually use something like fMRI as a lie detector or as a method of reading from a person's memories, it would be a good thing for legislature to ban wanton personal attacks of any kind. For a start, it would mean the US would be run by socialists, as it should be.
Frankly, I don't see the problem. Good arguments are generally rational ones, and rational arguments are generally not obscene. After all, obscenities and threats add nothing beyond proof of the writer's/speaker's inability to communicate or think.
Better yet, most Republican arguments DO use obscene, lewd and/or profane language, and frequently threaten to inflict physical harm. Many conservative Libertarians do, too. It seems to be a right-wing thing. This law could lead to the abolition of the right-wing in Arizona, and I just can't see anything bad about that.
I like your counterarguments, they're informative and extremely clear. At the very least, I'll need to revise my ideas accordingly. I'm not sure it's completely unlike anything that's been tried in chess algorithmics in general*, since I got the initial premise from the fact that chess grandmasters look at board patterns and only a few moves ahead. From this, I reasoned, they must have developed (consciously or unconsciously) an evaluation function of extremely high quality. Good players look more moved ahead, chess computers (which generally have very poor evaluation of patterns and don't do well with combination play) look further still. So there seems to be some sort of hyperbolic relationship between the complexity of the analysis (Y axis) and the moves ahead you need to go (X axis). But that may not be a real relationship, it may easily be a perceptual error on my part.
Although Game Theory has a lot to say about Full Information Games, such as there being a perfect strategy, it doesn't say if you can put that strategy into an equation or if you have to brute-force it. I'm taking a leap of faith in intuiting that an evaluation function exists that does not require a brute-force approach, that at the limit the "perfect" evaluation function need look a single move ahead. Let's say the best grandmaster looks 4 moves ahead with some mental evaluation function. To look 2 moves ahead and be just as good would be more than twice as hard (the problem-space is exponential), but how much harder? Game Theory's implication seems to be that the increase in difficulty is finite, and therefore doable, but I'm no John Nash or John von Neumann, I'm not completely confident in that conclusion.
In summary, then, we know that any given board position has a perfect strategy and that the position has a finite probability of reaching a win against any defense position, where if you had that perfect strategy then the probability would become 1.0 (100%) for one of either a win or a draw. (Game Theory says that there are full information games where perfect play will lead to a draw and we can't know if chess falls into that category or not until it is solved.)
*I agree that this is very different from the approach used in computational or mathematical chess algorithmics, I also agree that I may be going in completely the wrong direction. My gut feelings are almost always correct in identifying where things need study and a rethink - I can't honestly think of a time they've been wrong on that score - but they're fairly lousy when it comes to specifics. I rely heavily on experience to suggest actual solutions, which is great where I have experience (and is a big reason I try to have a massive breadth of knowledge) - not so much when I have relatively little. There, I depend utterly on informed and informative responses like your own to get a grasp of why that's the right starting point but the wrong direction.
"Initial conditions" in mathematics refers to when you start analyzing the system, not to when the system starts to exist. Since each board position is a fresh calculation, each board position is an initial condition. So although the first board is common, he's not really looking at only one initial condition. Yes, I know, mathspeak isn't intuitive and is often contrary to "common usage", but there ya go.
Their methods looks ok, their conclusion on the King's Gambit looks ok, but I hold that chess is a deterministic but non-predictable system that is sensitive to initial conditions. ie: a chaotic system. All chaotic systems can be represented by relatively simple mathematical equations, even if "relatively simple" means "still very complicated" and/or "not known at this time".
Their reasoning that the system will tend to some ratio of wins:draws:losses very quickly is one I can see being true for many cases, though not necessarily always. However, any that don't MUST (if my reasoning is correct) go into the only other valid state for a chaotic system, which is to oscillate.
Since any board position is a direct function of a previous board position, the ratio for any given non-ending board must be a function of all possible boards leading from it. Again, they use this same reasoning with their score method. I don't see it necessary to produce an actual score for a game board, though, since the score must be a consequence of the underlying set of chaotic functions that tie the score of one board to the score of all boards leading from it.
Assuming that the chaotic functions have some specific standard form, then you need only know enough scores for enough unrelated board positions to determine the values of all constants in those functions. For a linear equation, it's easy - you need one inequality per unknown to define the values of all unknowns. Chaotic systems aren't nearly so nice, but there will still be a finite number of inequalities to determine every unknown.
So? Chaos forbids you from knowing the outcome for a specific system without iterating through it.
True, but it does not prohibit you from classifying it. For a given point on the Mandelbrot Set, for example, you can say what the probability of escaping vs. not escaping is, and you can say that the probability of a specific escape velocity is, even though you CANNOT say what that point will actually do in practice. A minor variant on the scoring system in the article, nothing more, based on exactly the same reasoning.
The classifications will also follow a chaotic system (just as the Julia Set does for each position in the Mandelbrot Set).
This is the system that interests me. If you can solve the unknowns for the classification system of equations, then you can have a perfect board evaluation function. If you have that, then you need look only one move ahead and know that the move you make is the best possible move from that position, even though because this is a chaotic function of a chaotic function, you do NOT know why it is the best possible move or how the game will play out.
To this project or to this discovery? To the project, probably no. Well, other than being excellent practice in problem-solving. To the discovery, probably yes. There have long been arguments over the minimum complexity requirements for a general-purpose OS, which is an important problem to solve as complexity is a governor of many things (cost, durability, power requirements, heat generation, etc). We already know from Turing that any CPU can run any software for any other CPU, provided the memory is available and the CPUs are Turing Machine equivalents. What we've been less clear on is what this means in practice, how to exploit it, and whether architectural limitations violate the Turing Machine equivalency requirement. We now have numbers to work with, a case study, and a proof by example that equivalency is satisfied.
Alternatively, someone might want to design a new 8-bit CPU for certain embedded tasks where it's essential for there to be low power consumption and a high-end sophisticated OS. There are plenty of extremely slow mechanical operations (combine harvesting, for example) where millisecond responses are not going to be useful but where the complexity of the problem (varying evenness of the ground, varying field shapes, etc) mean you do want to be able to handle many different types of sensor, sophisticated algorithms, etc, within something that needs to be extremely cheap to build/replace and extremely low power to run to be more cost-efficient than having a farmhand (who is likely to be earning minimum wage or below).
Another option is a System-on-a-Chip. At present, SoC runs into all kinds of problems because of the compromises you have to make to fit everything into one die. If you can reduce the transistors of the CPU component, you can increase the transistors somewhere else, which means this knowledge increases your flexibility in such systems. That's extremely valuable to know, even if you never go to this extreme.
For deep space probes, radiation is a major concern. Well, for anything in space it's a major concern, but the deeper you go into space the nastier the radiation. It's why the highest-end space-rated CPUs are so primitive compared to commercial CPUs. Being able to reduce the complexity of the CPU and utilize the extra space for redundancy, without reducing the sort of complexity of software the CPU will run, is great news for anyone wanting to rival the Pioneer 10 & 11/Voyager 1 & 2 missions in terms of longevity whilst equally wanting to match Deep Space 1 or the Mars Rovers in terms of flexibility. Knowing that you don't strictly need a 32-bit architecture to run Linux and that you can slice out huge chunks of the architecture gives you tremendous power.
Because "all" and "every" have no exceptions, now or ever. If you use these words, I need find ONE exception, that is all. Your claim that it is irrelevant is because I have found your supposed logic wanting and you can't cope with that.
- again, as all of the revolutionaries, the missionaries and all of the failed dictators of the past (and current and not too distant future), they have all talked about building the NEW man and the NEW society and to do that all they needed was just to change the nature of the individual, to give the individual a higher degree of consciousness, so that the individual would become part of the collective and throw away his own real desires and ambitions etc.
But I'm not talking about building the "new man" or the "new culture". I am not talking about building any "thing". A permanent state of interlocked change isn't a thing. Nor is it building. It's not a construct, it's a process. Nor am I talking about changing individuals, I am talking about changing CHANGE, to inhibit stagnation.
I DO NOT want to see this 'correct society', and this is a good enough proof for me that you, and those like you will fail every time.
What you want to see has no bearing on what this would or would not achieve. To use that as "logic" is to prove your incapacity to think.
MY statement that all democracies lead to tyranny is correct
You offer no evidence, you offer religion. Religion is for the weak.
I don't want democracy, I want FREEDOM from people
Only the dead are free from people, so go kill yourself.
this contrived idea that people can be all equal
Define "equal". I hold that people are not "equal" in the sense of identical, but then your brain cells are not equal in the sense of being identical either. So what? Equitability is not equality. Indeed, it is not equality that you object to, but equitability, that you should treat ALL others the way you would like to be treated. But you don't want to treat people well. If you were in a collective, you'd be the worst dictator of all. You have no sense of others, you want it all and bugger the rest. You are the very evil you claim to despise. You don't despise that loss of "rights", you despise those rights.
I've said that - and more - to professors, generals and lords. I've said similar things to bullies (and have plenty of scars where they've lobbed me through windows). Why should I be afraid to say the same thing to you? I believe in the ultimate authority of reality, opinions and emotions are as nothing. They have no currency, only that which is matters, and all the implicit threats can't change that.
USA was artificially created based on agreement that individuals had rights
Every form of life beyond protozoa exists in a natural collective. To identify the USA as artificial is to therefore identify yourself as equal to a protozoa.
A RIGHT is a concept that only makes sense when we are talking about INDIVIDUAL having RIGHT not to be bothered by the COLLECTIVE, by the government without justification.
Like I said, you are equal to a protozoa. No form of life beyond that is so completely incompetent or incapable of rational thought. Rights are not about individuals vs collectives, rights are about ANY entity (including the collective) having authority without permission external to that entity, that is innate and inalienable. So all groups have rights. Individual rights are also protection against other individuals, so I have the ABSOLUTE right to not have you insult me. And that IS an absolute right. I will not tolerate further breach of that right by you or any other individual.
So government cannot steal individual's property, kill the individual, imprison him, etc.
Yet you would steal, kill or imprison, a violation of the very things you "claim" to be rights. Why? Because you do not believe in these rights at all. You do not comprehend rights, you comprehend only your own pride and contempt for all that are not you.
An element of a set cannot be extrapolated to infer the set. Induction is useless, particularly in your case as you're apparently incapable of comprehending what rules you can perform induction on, or how.
Your "logic" states nothing beyond your personal arrogance, it shows NOTHING. Democracy doesn't require wealth and CORRECTLY-IMPLEMENTED democracy has no mob rule, populist rule, etc. Those exist only in degenerate systems, where the Tea Party is a classic example of degeneracy in action. You show nothing in your claim, you certainly prove nothing.
But I don't care to predict the far away future, I only care about this life time, so you can keep your pedantry in your basement.
You're the one insisting on this "always" crap. "Always" IS a prediction of the far future. And every possible far future at that. "Always" is as absolute as it gets. "Always" means "For ALL X in Y, with no exceptions". Only a fool, a moron or a religious freak uses the word with the kind of abandon you do.
- ha ha ha, and you will tell us all about how you'll implement this 'correctly', and you'll tell us all about how you'll change the character of the people NOT to want to live better than their neighbours by doing as little as possible actual production?
"Always" requires you to prove no such element exists, or you cannot have an "always". I don't need to show how it will be implemented, to falsify an "always" I merely need to show that there exists an X in Y where your claim is wrong. I don't need to show anything beyond that, I only need to show your claim cannot be true.
If you like, I *CAN* show how such a thing would be implemented correctly, WITHOUT changing the character of people. No, revolutionaries and missionaries do not describe democracies. Indeed, they cannot. That I *can* prove mathematically.
Then you're a moron. Your points are contradicted by reality.
Individual rights cannot exist without collective rights for them to exist within. Anarchy has total freedom but no rights.
Social safety nets exist because all natural systems degenerate to the 80:20 rule and the 80:20 rule is neither efficient nor ethical.
The US has never been particularly productive, individual freedoms != individual rights (Americans really need to grasp this), and the time between the Civil War and WW1 is when it was guilty of most of the theft of technology from other nations, had one of the worst civil rights records and was most interested in financially backing tyrannies and dictatorships. It fought many wars in that time out of greed and perversion (not claiming more recent wars were better, merely those wars were cynical, self-serving and degenerate), xenophobia and religious extremism were rampant. The South, especially, became dangerously close to Failed Nation status out of its desire to circumvent individual rights in the name of individual freedom.
I regard the US as the worst possible example of progressive or rational thinking. The first President had it right - political parties are destructive monstrosities and liberty is no excuse for the destruction of society.
"Always" is a big word, and one I suspect you do not comprehend. Indeed, by your very use of it here, you are stating you can mathematically prove your claim (since examples alone CANNOT be used to prove an "always") that there can NEVER exist a democracy that does not lead to tyranny. Unless you have the equations for Seldon's Psychohistory, I don't see how you could mathematically prove that. Ergo, your claim is arrogant and supported only by your worldview rather than by facts on the ground. Any such view is inherently blind, self-serving and depraved. It can be nothing else, regardless of any correctness contained within, as such correctness is by chance alone and not due to comprehension or understanding.
I argue that CORRECTLY-IMPLEMENTED* democracy cannot ever lead to tyranny, that America has become tyrannical precisely because it's a republic, and that systems theory should be a mandatory part of education since there are too many idiots in the world who cannot look past their own petty self-interests to understand what democracy actually IS.
*"Correctly-implemented" is partially defined in my journal, but for the idiots out there I'll summarize here. It has to start with Plato's requirements for a stable democracy (where Plato's educational requirement is considered not as a function of how much schools taught then but as a function of how much there is to know at any given point in time). However, since I hold that ALL aspects of society must progress IN NET at an equal rate, I extend Plato's requirement by saying that the political institutions must evolve in nature at no slower pace than either society or science, whichever is the FASTER of the two. Politics that is not evidence-based and rationally-driven is guaranteed to stagnate, and it is stagnation that causes corruption. NOTHING survives being stagnant for long, evolve or perish.
Agreed. Common Law is perhaps the most useful subset of law, in this regard, in that it provides a framework for understanding (common law marriage, for example) but that's all it provides. Criminal and civil law are intended to draw absolute lines over which people should not cross, but they're now too complex to parse and contradictory, and are therefore useless in any practical sense as that framework.
But laws (even well-written ones) can only ever be a framework, a skeleton on which other things can hang. My personal world view is that politics then forms the deepest layer on top of that, an undercoat that cushions everything else. Ethics then forms the next layer and provides the true body, with morality then being the padding on top of ethics. In computing terms, laws would be the hardware, politics the firmware, ethics the OS and morality the userland libraries.
Slashdot Mirror
Very, very early x-ray machines used considerably more radiation. Over a thousand times as much, according to some.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/century-ray-machine-shows-radiation-risks-yore/story?id=13140857#.T4R5CtXe4tY
I would imagine that it is possible to find a band of time over which radiation has decreased by 100, but how useful is it as a measure? Does it really matter that an x-ray machine emits 100x less over the course of a lifetime, or even a decade? If the dosage was so great a decade ago that it is still significant in dosage calculations then that is what we should be concerned about, not what the exposure is today.
Classic Berne enshrines "fair use"* - US copyright (as many have discovered) does not. Berne does NOT copyright data, only structured data - in that specific structure.
*Fair use is generally taken as** 1 article of a journal (or chapter of a book) or 10% of the complete content, whichever is the shorter, 1 minute of audio, or 10 seconds of video, where more is permitted if necessary for the task of review or legitimate study. Fair use ALSO enshrines Common Law's "Reasonableness". Where an act is considered "Reasonable", it is automatically fair use.
**Doesn't necessarily mean the convention states these precise values, this is what it's taken as meaning.
Classic Berne is good for 50 years for books and music, 25 years for journals, and I think only 10 years for generic structured data. Could be wrong. The increases are add-ons to the convention and not part of the original convention itself.
A suspicion requires only proof that the person does indeed suspect that. A -rational- suspicion requires proof that there is a -rational- basis for that suspicion. In neither case is proof required that the suspicion is correct.
Evidence can be implicit and in the form of context, you have supplied none. As such, it is context-free and says nothing.
Find some with any standing in one of either planetary science or environmental chemistry. I'll make it easy - you can't. AGW is not debated in these fields, it's established science. There are NO dissenting scientists outside of those fields in which the dissenter is a mere layperson.
It is shared by everyone whose opinions are of the least interest or significance in the matter.
Science is not a philosophy, philosophy is a science. There are no facts in science, only observations.
Actually, no they're not. Science isn't about proof or disproof. It is a methodology in which the simplest theory that explains everything of interest is preferred. The others are not deemed false, they're deemed to not be preferred. Your ignorance of science explains why you're a climate cynic - you lack any comprehension.
Show me. Again, I'll make it easy - there is none to show.
I would contend that the living dead aren't alive to live, that a polluted waste tip isn't life and that your attitude condemns billions to exist merely as zombies. Yes, it should matter how we live, and I say we should live in the best realistically achievable world, not the third-rate slum you want us to live in.
I would also contend that we are capable of living forever, we are nothing more than bits of data in biological computers and data has no sell-by date.
A question is meant to illicit a response, too, so your claim has no validity. The two have no relationship to one another. The statement was certainly angry, possibly inflammatory, but it was nonetheless truthful (neurologists have established beyond all reasonable doubt that republicanism is legitimized xenophobia). The only question was whether the truthfulness was deliberate. (A knowingly valid statement that incidentally offends cannot be a troll, an incidentally valid statement that knowingly offends IS a troll.)
Not signing onto agreements then peddling stolen goods is also bullying other countries with the US' insane views on patents and copyright. Berne is perfectly reasonable and fair, the predecessor to WIPO was largely fair, indeed EU rules on copyright and patents are almost entirely intelligent.
Apparently, a reactor not too far along the coast had just finished building far higher sea walls and substantially better safety features as demanded by the engineers. Fukushima might have stopped working even with the add-ons, but it wouldn't have catastrophically failed. Ultimately, it did so because those running it were cheap. Nor were reactors the only places with adequate sea defenses.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-25/tsunami-risk-well-known-to-nuclear-engineers-regulators-who-failed-to-act.html
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/05/japanese-mayor-built-a-huge-sea-wall-and-saved-his-village-from-the-tsunami/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12923699
I conclude that the reactor being taken out was probably unavoidable but that the meltdown and explosions were.
It is likely that in some dinosaurs that both were present. In other cases, it may be that feathers were present first, then scales replaced them when shed - like adult teeth replace milk teeth. Also, because it's the same gene, a change in environmental conditions may cause feathers to appear in dinosaurs in which they would not otherwise do so -- once the mutations necessary have arisen, of course. One case study is proof that the mutations existed at that time and is a strong indication that feathered dinos existed prior to that time, but we've insufficient evidence to say definitely if this was a feathered dino in the general case, only the specific case.
Already pointed out that it is not the statements that matter but the qualifiers that apply to the process of formulating them (and the difficulty of judging whether those qualifiers apply, given we can't read minds - yet).
There is no "other side of the aisle", at least in the US, UK, or any other country on this planet. And I didn't say ALL Republicans were guilty (most != all), nor did I specify that Democrats were any better (they aren't, I could just as easily have said most Democrats are frothing lunatics - it would have been just as considered, just as rational and just as accurate).
It's a considered, rational opinion of mine based on the best-available data. Ergo, it is not a troll. An IDENTICAL statement made by anyone thinking purely emotionally rather than rationally WOULD be a troll.
To ban trolling is, in truth, to ban irrational lashing out, to ban unthinking malice and to ban unconsidered offensive statements. The qualifiers matter, it is the qualifiers and NOT the statements themselves that determine if something is a troll.
Just as the truth cannot be slander or libel, a considered, rational opinion cannot be a troll.
Therefore, the first statement (which is certainly considered, rational and true) cannot be a troll.
The second statement - that depends. If indeed you have offered evidence of racism, it would be a considered, rational opinion. If you have not, then it would not be. The statement would be a troll ONLY in the second case. A statement, in and of itself, deprived of context, cannot be judged either a troll or not.
The third statement is extreme, certainly, but again it depends on whether it is rational and considered. The evidence for AGW is definitive and I'd certainly agree that anyone not embracing it is making a choice that has nothing to do with rational or logical thought. That doesn't make it mental illness, though. Greed is inefficient but greedy industrialists aren't mentally ill, just very stupid. If, however, the scientist is aware of a link between denialism and mental illness, then it is a rational, considered view and ergo not a troll.
The final statement is definitely true, but being true is not sufficient. If the statement was made on emotional, rather than rational, grounds then it was a troll. If it was rational, rather than emotional, then it was not.
You are conflating angry speech with trolling, the two are not the same.
How? There's a world of difference between debate (where it is implied that both sides are listening and responding in a considered manner) and trolling (where it is implied at least one side is neither listening nor considering). I have reached the conclusion America knows bugger all about debates - and, no, that is not trolling because I am most certainly listening to the arguments put forward and have indeed reached a considered, rational conclusion. Just as it is impossible for the truth to be libel, it is impossible for a considered evaluation to be a troll.
However, one needs to be careful. The same words by someone who did NOT listen and/or who did NOT perform a considered evaluation WOULD be a troll. It is not the words that make it so, it is the process by which they are reached. It would be extremely hard for a court of law to determine the mental process by which a statement is formulated, unless fMRI has progressed further than I'm aware of -- unless Arizona is willing to accept what is believed at present to meet legal requirements.
Once it is possible to actually use something like fMRI as a lie detector or as a method of reading from a person's memories, it would be a good thing for legislature to ban wanton personal attacks of any kind. For a start, it would mean the US would be run by socialists, as it should be.
Frankly, I don't see the problem. Good arguments are generally rational ones, and rational arguments are generally not obscene. After all, obscenities and threats add nothing beyond proof of the writer's/speaker's inability to communicate or think.
Better yet, most Republican arguments DO use obscene, lewd and/or profane language, and frequently threaten to inflict physical harm. Many conservative Libertarians do, too. It seems to be a right-wing thing. This law could lead to the abolition of the right-wing in Arizona, and I just can't see anything bad about that.
I like your counterarguments, they're informative and extremely clear. At the very least, I'll need to revise my ideas accordingly. I'm not sure it's completely unlike anything that's been tried in chess algorithmics in general*, since I got the initial premise from the fact that chess grandmasters look at board patterns and only a few moves ahead. From this, I reasoned, they must have developed (consciously or unconsciously) an evaluation function of extremely high quality. Good players look more moved ahead, chess computers (which generally have very poor evaluation of patterns and don't do well with combination play) look further still. So there seems to be some sort of hyperbolic relationship between the complexity of the analysis (Y axis) and the moves ahead you need to go (X axis). But that may not be a real relationship, it may easily be a perceptual error on my part.
Although Game Theory has a lot to say about Full Information Games, such as there being a perfect strategy, it doesn't say if you can put that strategy into an equation or if you have to brute-force it. I'm taking a leap of faith in intuiting that an evaluation function exists that does not require a brute-force approach, that at the limit the "perfect" evaluation function need look a single move ahead. Let's say the best grandmaster looks 4 moves ahead with some mental evaluation function. To look 2 moves ahead and be just as good would be more than twice as hard (the problem-space is exponential), but how much harder? Game Theory's implication seems to be that the increase in difficulty is finite, and therefore doable, but I'm no John Nash or John von Neumann, I'm not completely confident in that conclusion.
In summary, then, we know that any given board position has a perfect strategy and that the position has a finite probability of reaching a win against any defense position, where if you had that perfect strategy then the probability would become 1.0 (100%) for one of either a win or a draw. (Game Theory says that there are full information games where perfect play will lead to a draw and we can't know if chess falls into that category or not until it is solved.)
*I agree that this is very different from the approach used in computational or mathematical chess algorithmics, I also agree that I may be going in completely the wrong direction. My gut feelings are almost always correct in identifying where things need study and a rethink - I can't honestly think of a time they've been wrong on that score - but they're fairly lousy when it comes to specifics. I rely heavily on experience to suggest actual solutions, which is great where I have experience (and is a big reason I try to have a massive breadth of knowledge) - not so much when I have relatively little. There, I depend utterly on informed and informative responses like your own to get a grasp of why that's the right starting point but the wrong direction.
"Initial conditions" in mathematics refers to when you start analyzing the system, not to when the system starts to exist. Since each board position is a fresh calculation, each board position is an initial condition. So although the first board is common, he's not really looking at only one initial condition. Yes, I know, mathspeak isn't intuitive and is often contrary to "common usage", but there ya go.
Only half of your personalities need to be.
Their methods looks ok, their conclusion on the King's Gambit looks ok, but I hold that chess is a deterministic but non-predictable system that is sensitive to initial conditions. ie: a chaotic system. All chaotic systems can be represented by relatively simple mathematical equations, even if "relatively simple" means "still very complicated" and/or "not known at this time".
Their reasoning that the system will tend to some ratio of wins:draws:losses very quickly is one I can see being true for many cases, though not necessarily always. However, any that don't MUST (if my reasoning is correct) go into the only other valid state for a chaotic system, which is to oscillate.
Since any board position is a direct function of a previous board position, the ratio for any given non-ending board must be a function of all possible boards leading from it. Again, they use this same reasoning with their score method. I don't see it necessary to produce an actual score for a game board, though, since the score must be a consequence of the underlying set of chaotic functions that tie the score of one board to the score of all boards leading from it.
Assuming that the chaotic functions have some specific standard form, then you need only know enough scores for enough unrelated board positions to determine the values of all constants in those functions. For a linear equation, it's easy - you need one inequality per unknown to define the values of all unknowns. Chaotic systems aren't nearly so nice, but there will still be a finite number of inequalities to determine every unknown.
So? Chaos forbids you from knowing the outcome for a specific system without iterating through it.
True, but it does not prohibit you from classifying it. For a given point on the Mandelbrot Set, for example, you can say what the probability of escaping vs. not escaping is, and you can say that the probability of a specific escape velocity is, even though you CANNOT say what that point will actually do in practice. A minor variant on the scoring system in the article, nothing more, based on exactly the same reasoning.
The classifications will also follow a chaotic system (just as the Julia Set does for each position in the Mandelbrot Set).
This is the system that interests me. If you can solve the unknowns for the classification system of equations, then you can have a perfect board evaluation function. If you have that, then you need look only one move ahead and know that the move you make is the best possible move from that position, even though because this is a chaotic function of a chaotic function, you do NOT know why it is the best possible move or how the game will play out.
That's not hard, if you're living on Titan.
To this project or to this discovery? To the project, probably no. Well, other than being excellent practice in problem-solving. To the discovery, probably yes. There have long been arguments over the minimum complexity requirements for a general-purpose OS, which is an important problem to solve as complexity is a governor of many things (cost, durability, power requirements, heat generation, etc). We already know from Turing that any CPU can run any software for any other CPU, provided the memory is available and the CPUs are Turing Machine equivalents. What we've been less clear on is what this means in practice, how to exploit it, and whether architectural limitations violate the Turing Machine equivalency requirement. We now have numbers to work with, a case study, and a proof by example that equivalency is satisfied.
Already done. One of the earliest supercomputer-grade clusters was a gigantic mesh of 65C02 processors. You'll need to come up with something better.
Alternatively, someone might want to design a new 8-bit CPU for certain embedded tasks where it's essential for there to be low power consumption and a high-end sophisticated OS. There are plenty of extremely slow mechanical operations (combine harvesting, for example) where millisecond responses are not going to be useful but where the complexity of the problem (varying evenness of the ground, varying field shapes, etc) mean you do want to be able to handle many different types of sensor, sophisticated algorithms, etc, within something that needs to be extremely cheap to build/replace and extremely low power to run to be more cost-efficient than having a farmhand (who is likely to be earning minimum wage or below).
Another option is a System-on-a-Chip. At present, SoC runs into all kinds of problems because of the compromises you have to make to fit everything into one die. If you can reduce the transistors of the CPU component, you can increase the transistors somewhere else, which means this knowledge increases your flexibility in such systems. That's extremely valuable to know, even if you never go to this extreme.
For deep space probes, radiation is a major concern. Well, for anything in space it's a major concern, but the deeper you go into space the nastier the radiation. It's why the highest-end space-rated CPUs are so primitive compared to commercial CPUs. Being able to reduce the complexity of the CPU and utilize the extra space for redundancy, without reducing the sort of complexity of software the CPU will run, is great news for anyone wanting to rival the Pioneer 10 & 11/Voyager 1 & 2 missions in terms of longevity whilst equally wanting to match Deep Space 1 or the Mars Rovers in terms of flexibility. Knowing that you don't strictly need a 32-bit architecture to run Linux and that you can slice out huge chunks of the architecture gives you tremendous power.
Because "all" and "every" have no exceptions, now or ever. If you use these words, I need find ONE exception, that is all. Your claim that it is irrelevant is because I have found your supposed logic wanting and you can't cope with that.
But I'm not talking about building the "new man" or the "new culture". I am not talking about building any "thing". A permanent state of interlocked change isn't a thing. Nor is it building. It's not a construct, it's a process. Nor am I talking about changing individuals, I am talking about changing CHANGE, to inhibit stagnation.
What you want to see has no bearing on what this would or would not achieve. To use that as "logic" is to prove your incapacity to think.
You offer no evidence, you offer religion. Religion is for the weak.
Only the dead are free from people, so go kill yourself.
Define "equal". I hold that people are not "equal" in the sense of identical, but then your brain cells are not equal in the sense of being identical either. So what? Equitability is not equality. Indeed, it is not equality that you object to, but equitability, that you should treat ALL others the way you would like to be treated. But you don't want to treat people well. If you were in a collective, you'd be the worst dictator of all. You have no sense of others, you want it all and bugger the rest. You are the very evil you claim to despise. You don't despise that loss of "rights", you despise those rights.
I've said that - and more - to professors, generals and lords. I've said similar things to bullies (and have plenty of scars where they've lobbed me through windows). Why should I be afraid to say the same thing to you? I believe in the ultimate authority of reality, opinions and emotions are as nothing. They have no currency, only that which is matters, and all the implicit threats can't change that.
Every form of life beyond protozoa exists in a natural collective. To identify the USA as artificial is to therefore identify yourself as equal to a protozoa.
Like I said, you are equal to a protozoa. No form of life beyond that is so completely incompetent or incapable of rational thought. Rights are not about individuals vs collectives, rights are about ANY entity (including the collective) having authority without permission external to that entity, that is innate and inalienable. So all groups have rights. Individual rights are also protection against other individuals, so I have the ABSOLUTE right to not have you insult me. And that IS an absolute right. I will not tolerate further breach of that right by you or any other individual.
Yet you would steal, kill or imprison, a violation of the very things you "claim" to be rights. Why? Because you do not believe in these rights at all. You do not comprehend rights, you comprehend only your own pride and contempt for all that are not you.
An element of a set cannot be extrapolated to infer the set. Induction is useless, particularly in your case as you're apparently incapable of comprehending what rules you can perform induction on, or how.
Your "logic" states nothing beyond your personal arrogance, it shows NOTHING. Democracy doesn't require wealth and CORRECTLY-IMPLEMENTED democracy has no mob rule, populist rule, etc. Those exist only in degenerate systems, where the Tea Party is a classic example of degeneracy in action. You show nothing in your claim, you certainly prove nothing.
You're the one insisting on this "always" crap. "Always" IS a prediction of the far future. And every possible far future at that. "Always" is as absolute as it gets. "Always" means "For ALL X in Y, with no exceptions". Only a fool, a moron or a religious freak uses the word with the kind of abandon you do.
"Always" requires you to prove no such element exists, or you cannot have an "always". I don't need to show how it will be implemented, to falsify an "always" I merely need to show that there exists an X in Y where your claim is wrong. I don't need to show anything beyond that, I only need to show your claim cannot be true.
If you like, I *CAN* show how such a thing would be implemented correctly, WITHOUT changing the character of people. No, revolutionaries and missionaries do not describe democracies. Indeed, they cannot. That I *can* prove mathematically.
Then you're a moron. Your points are contradicted by reality.
Individual rights cannot exist without collective rights for them to exist within. Anarchy has total freedom but no rights.
Social safety nets exist because all natural systems degenerate to the 80:20 rule and the 80:20 rule is neither efficient nor ethical.
The US has never been particularly productive, individual freedoms != individual rights (Americans really need to grasp this), and the time between the Civil War and WW1 is when it was guilty of most of the theft of technology from other nations, had one of the worst civil rights records and was most interested in financially backing tyrannies and dictatorships. It fought many wars in that time out of greed and perversion (not claiming more recent wars were better, merely those wars were cynical, self-serving and degenerate), xenophobia and religious extremism were rampant. The South, especially, became dangerously close to Failed Nation status out of its desire to circumvent individual rights in the name of individual freedom.
I regard the US as the worst possible example of progressive or rational thinking. The first President had it right - political parties are destructive monstrosities and liberty is no excuse for the destruction of society.
"Always" is a big word, and one I suspect you do not comprehend. Indeed, by your very use of it here, you are stating you can mathematically prove your claim (since examples alone CANNOT be used to prove an "always") that there can NEVER exist a democracy that does not lead to tyranny. Unless you have the equations for Seldon's Psychohistory, I don't see how you could mathematically prove that. Ergo, your claim is arrogant and supported only by your worldview rather than by facts on the ground. Any such view is inherently blind, self-serving and depraved. It can be nothing else, regardless of any correctness contained within, as such correctness is by chance alone and not due to comprehension or understanding.
I argue that CORRECTLY-IMPLEMENTED* democracy cannot ever lead to tyranny, that America has become tyrannical precisely because it's a republic, and that systems theory should be a mandatory part of education since there are too many idiots in the world who cannot look past their own petty self-interests to understand what democracy actually IS.
*"Correctly-implemented" is partially defined in my journal, but for the idiots out there I'll summarize here. It has to start with Plato's requirements for a stable democracy (where Plato's educational requirement is considered not as a function of how much schools taught then but as a function of how much there is to know at any given point in time). However, since I hold that ALL aspects of society must progress IN NET at an equal rate, I extend Plato's requirement by saying that the political institutions must evolve in nature at no slower pace than either society or science, whichever is the FASTER of the two. Politics that is not evidence-based and rationally-driven is guaranteed to stagnate, and it is stagnation that causes corruption. NOTHING survives being stagnant for long, evolve or perish.
Agreed. Common Law is perhaps the most useful subset of law, in this regard, in that it provides a framework for understanding (common law marriage, for example) but that's all it provides. Criminal and civil law are intended to draw absolute lines over which people should not cross, but they're now too complex to parse and contradictory, and are therefore useless in any practical sense as that framework.
But laws (even well-written ones) can only ever be a framework, a skeleton on which other things can hang. My personal world view is that politics then forms the deepest layer on top of that, an undercoat that cushions everything else. Ethics then forms the next layer and provides the true body, with morality then being the padding on top of ethics. In computing terms, laws would be the hardware, politics the firmware, ethics the OS and morality the userland libraries.