The fact is that science looks at evidence left on the scene of the Big Bang to deduce what happened at that time by making theories about the event, and testing them by reenacting it. Then comparing the results to the evidence of the big bang. Making the argument that the difference between the original and the reenactment is solely in the synthetic conditions introduced in the test. That is an exact parallel of the process of law, at least in principle. Which is what we're talking about - the principle they have in common.
I don't know how good an astronomer you are. But you'd be a terrible lawyer. I don't see any irony is finding that you're a typically narrow specialist who can't see that another discipline parallels yours in principle. In fact, the irony lies in both your not realizing that, and your failure to properly identify irony - lawyers know better, and scientists are smarter. Next time _American Lawyer_ has "Fallacies: Argument from Authority" on the cover, look into it.
Terrible critique. Even the Big Bang is studied as reproducible conditions, at least in scale or in part. Science is always about reproducibility, as consistency of phenomena laws across all spacetime is one of science's fundamental principles (that is itself frequently tested and investigated).
Also, announcing your conclusion before making your argument isn't very scientific. More like a lawyer. The kind of lawyer who knows nothing about science but its vocabulary and popular covers of _Discover_ magazine.
Are any of those delays still available to play with? They all seem like they'd have really interesting noise and envelopes for using as delay effects on my electric guitar or electric (analogue pickup) piano. Imagine a solo that sounds like a rorschach of ENIAC's brain...
The solution to the complex access problems is, as usual, distributed social trust networks. But we're still so primitive that I can't even find a whitelist/blacklist plugin for my Evolution.
There probably is one, but it's hidden behind an opaque trust network of people who know about it, but who I don't know, though we have that SW relationship (need/have) in common. Let's see if the manual broadcast still works.
Science rarely examines onetime events, out of all the phenomena it studies. And when it does, it explicitly states its certainty in very low confidence levels. And, like with the Big Bang, composes a theory of how the event itself isn't just gone, but is part of massive evidence everywhere - or scientists won't argue with much certainty of all.
Science also works on shades of doubt and uncertainty. Science, in fact, took many of the terms and practices of law, as they coevolved - usually in the same countries and cultures.
So it is you who misunderstands, and misstates, both science and law. And especially you misunderstand one device common to them both: analogy and metaphor.
OK, since I've found the first Slashdot thread in months that's more light than heat (pun intended:), maybe you can explain whether light moving through the curved space past a mass doesn't just "pull" the mass and light closer, but does it also change the energy in the light, which I would expect to be measurable as a lowered frequency?
And if so, is there a way to make nanoscopic light frequency shifters by moving masses closer/farther near light's path, perhaps shining in a vacuum channel? What if the light were in a glass fiber - would the attraction pull the light against the fiber wall? Would it reflect internally differently than if the mass weren't moved? What if the mass weren't matter, but more light - could that make a photonic "transistor" that either deflects or frequency-shifts light with solely photonic control?
Thanks for taking the time with this esoteric stuff, that I've mostly got wrong.
One big problem with our justice system is that it's modeled on science, with evidence, hypothesis (of guilt), theory(of how the law was broken), and logical analysis of physical tests (and the weaker, but still analytical, cross examination of witnesses), all relying on the principle of falsifiability (if the hypothesis can be disproven, or alternatives can't be disproven, the hypothesis is rejected). But science really relies on reproducibility. Experiments are repeated several times and competitively criticized by others with experience repeating and reading the results. While criminal justice does a single "experiment", the alleged criminal act, and then analyzes it once. And then sometimes executes people.
Sometimes it seems like justice is impossible unless there's something like a criminals union, or at least a defendants union, to counterbalance the government agencies like the FBI that will just lie about evidence and be trusted by judges, who after all are both working for The Man (who raises all that money for bigger prisons).
Something I find interesting about these mechanics is that it seems that even light with a wavelength that does not match any of the quantum levels of the atoms of a translucent material can somehow be absorbed by that material. Is that because the atoms have an infinite amount of quantum levels, stretching outwards from the nucleus, with at least one level available somewhere in its "stack" for any incoming wavelength light, or because every material has impurities which inevitably have some (relatively low) quantum levels which can absorb some light, or some other mechanism?
It seems to me that the quantum nature of these effects should offer lots of "no strings attached" ways to interact with 100% "elasticity" that human scale matter's statistical average behavior makes impossible. But there never seems to be a "free lunch", even if you pay in advance and get a refund, even if you just smell the sandwich untouched:).
The inefficiency in reflections is light converting to heat when interacting with the medium. What exactly is that mechanism called? And is refraction, rather than reflection, ever 100% efficient?
I think a very long fiber, maybe thousands of Km long, with half mirrored ends (like a laser crystal rod has), could do this, but I'm thinking of using actual reflection, rather than total internal reflection at the critical angle.
And that, my friends, is how ideas refract at the boundary of stupid and clever, leaving the Anonymous Cowards in the dark, and the real people dancing in rainbows.
Has anyone worked on making devices or materials that channel light along a very long internal optical path folded up inside a small volume? Maybe some kind of photonic crystal that takes a laser input at a precisely calibrated angle, that reflects off nanoscopic features all throughout, or an optical medium with precisely aligned internal reflecting surfaces to cycle the light around, moving across the reflection surfaces gradually with each cycle through them, until the light reflects at an angle that escapes? Since photons interact only at the locus where they actually interfere and travels straight without confinement, the light doesn't need extra structure to segregate it. A long enough reflection path could emit light at its end only after a long time internally reflecting, which could offer enough time to move a properly positioned reflector "cap" over the entrance/exit. That device wouldn't slow light, but it would delay it, and then store it, entirely optically. Perhaps offering a purely photonic battery.
Well, that's what I meant by "perpetuity for derivatives". I still think the GPL is more complex than it needs to be for what it does. Which means that it's possible that it does more than what we think, if a good lawyer works it, including working against what we think.
I don't really get what's so "liberal" about this kind of inane overprotection of children from images of real adults. Sesame Street was a completely liberal invention: government TV to help raise children by presenting a friendly urban street with diverse, idiosyncratic neighbors. Dehumanizing it and refusing to trust parents to help their children interpret the images is pretty weird, but it's not "liberal".
The problem I'm talking about solving isn't that beautiful women are unapproachable. I'm married to one myself, after a long career of getting just a little closer than approaching.
I mentioned the party icebreaker only as one example, and conventions as another. There are limits to smalltalk that keep people from meeting who'd like to talk in depth, but only if there's something in common. Like seeing someone cute on a crowded subway, where striking up a conversation is mostly taboo, but which hasn't been locked down on phones yet. But of course there's lots more scenarios.
The point is that phones can do things that we can't unaided. If you don't want to do those things, don't bother. But stomping on people thinking about doing it is just antisocial.
We tried that for a long time, and it had problems. Using the phone doesn't stop you, it just give you another tool. But feel free to stay out of our way. BTW, why are you using Slashdot if that's your attitude?
I'd like to see Bluetooth accommodate a request to connect two phones that are held by people with no preexisting relationship. Like when you see someone cute at a party, you can send a request to their phone, with your picture attached, asking to talk. Maybe attach tags to the request, with some common interests, or some mutual friends. Before you even get their phone#. With an "ignore" button that can also blacklist permanently.
That would work great not only for meeting dates, but also at conventions. Phones could replace the greeting card, and really make social networks work.
Does the current Bluetooth protocol have any features to support that kind of app? Or does the protocol need some revision to make it work?
Slashdot Mirror
A lawyer isn't a union. Now tell me that you're a libertarian.
Go look for ass stuffing poofter 12 year old friends elsewhere. They'll teach you more about reproduction than you ever wanted to know.
The fact is that science looks at evidence left on the scene of the Big Bang to deduce what happened at that time by making theories about the event, and testing them by reenacting it. Then comparing the results to the evidence of the big bang. Making the argument that the difference between the original and the reenactment is solely in the synthetic conditions introduced in the test. That is an exact parallel of the process of law, at least in principle. Which is what we're talking about - the principle they have in common.
I don't know how good an astronomer you are. But you'd be a terrible lawyer. I don't see any irony is finding that you're a typically narrow specialist who can't see that another discipline parallels yours in principle. In fact, the irony lies in both your not realizing that, and your failure to properly identify irony - lawyers know better, and scientists are smarter. Next time _American Lawyer_ has "Fallacies: Argument from Authority" on the cover, look into it.
Terrible critique. Even the Big Bang is studied as reproducible conditions, at least in scale or in part. Science is always about reproducibility, as consistency of phenomena laws across all spacetime is one of science's fundamental principles (that is itself frequently tested and investigated).
Also, announcing your conclusion before making your argument isn't very scientific. More like a lawyer. The kind of lawyer who knows nothing about science but its vocabulary and popular covers of _Discover_ magazine.
Are any of those delays still available to play with? They all seem like they'd have really interesting noise and envelopes for using as delay effects on my electric guitar or electric (analogue pickup) piano. Imagine a solo that sounds like a rorschach of ENIAC's brain...
The solution to the complex access problems is, as usual, distributed social trust networks. But we're still so primitive that I can't even find a whitelist/blacklist plugin for my Evolution.
There probably is one, but it's hidden behind an opaque trust network of people who know about it, but who I don't know, though we have that SW relationship (need/have) in common. Let's see if the manual broadcast still works.
If you don't know what a photonic battery is, or why it's sought after, you're stuck in the 80s.
Thanks for demonstrating that Slashdot is News for Nerds, not necessarily geeks.
Science rarely examines onetime events, out of all the phenomena it studies. And when it does, it explicitly states its certainty in very low confidence levels. And, like with the Big Bang, composes a theory of how the event itself isn't just gone, but is part of massive evidence everywhere - or scientists won't argue with much certainty of all.
Science also works on shades of doubt and uncertainty. Science, in fact, took many of the terms and practices of law, as they coevolved - usually in the same countries and cultures.
So it is you who misunderstands, and misstates, both science and law. And especially you misunderstand one device common to them both: analogy and metaphor.
OK, since I've found the first Slashdot thread in months that's more light than heat (pun intended :), maybe you can explain whether light moving through the curved space past a mass doesn't just "pull" the mass and light closer, but does it also change the energy in the light, which I would expect to be measurable as a lowered frequency?
And if so, is there a way to make nanoscopic light frequency shifters by moving masses closer/farther near light's path, perhaps shining in a vacuum channel? What if the light were in a glass fiber - would the attraction pull the light against the fiber wall? Would it reflect internally differently than if the mass weren't moved? What if the mass weren't matter, but more light - could that make a photonic "transistor" that either deflects or frequency-shifts light with solely photonic control?
Thanks for taking the time with this esoteric stuff, that I've mostly got wrong.
One big problem with our justice system is that it's modeled on science, with evidence, hypothesis (of guilt), theory(of how the law was broken), and logical analysis of physical tests (and the weaker, but still analytical, cross examination of witnesses), all relying on the principle of falsifiability (if the hypothesis can be disproven, or alternatives can't be disproven, the hypothesis is rejected). But science really relies on reproducibility. Experiments are repeated several times and competitively criticized by others with experience repeating and reading the results. While criminal justice does a single "experiment", the alleged criminal act, and then analyzes it once. And then sometimes executes people.
Sometimes it seems like justice is impossible unless there's something like a criminals union, or at least a defendants union, to counterbalance the government agencies like the FBI that will just lie about evidence and be trusted by judges, who after all are both working for The Man (who raises all that money for bigger prisons).
Something I find interesting about these mechanics is that it seems that even light with a wavelength that does not match any of the quantum levels of the atoms of a translucent material can somehow be absorbed by that material. Is that because the atoms have an infinite amount of quantum levels, stretching outwards from the nucleus, with at least one level available somewhere in its "stack" for any incoming wavelength light, or because every material has impurities which inevitably have some (relatively low) quantum levels which can absorb some light, or some other mechanism?
:).
It seems to me that the quantum nature of these effects should offer lots of "no strings attached" ways to interact with 100% "elasticity" that human scale matter's statistical average behavior makes impossible. But there never seems to be a "free lunch", even if you pay in advance and get a refund, even if you just smell the sandwich untouched
The inefficiency in reflections is light converting to heat when interacting with the medium. What exactly is that mechanism called? And is refraction, rather than reflection, ever 100% efficient?
Actually, I think I just slid the engineering fiction into the vacuum between Shaw's science fiction and romantic fiction. Not bad, at first glance.
I think a very long fiber, maybe thousands of Km long, with half mirrored ends (like a laser crystal rod has), could do this, but I'm thinking of using actual reflection, rather than total internal reflection at the critical angle.
Make a helluva lighter.
And that, my friends, is how ideas refract at the boundary of stupid and clever, leaving the Anonymous Cowards in the dark, and the real people dancing in rainbows.
Has anyone worked on making devices or materials that channel light along a very long internal optical path folded up inside a small volume? Maybe some kind of photonic crystal that takes a laser input at a precisely calibrated angle, that reflects off nanoscopic features all throughout, or an optical medium with precisely aligned internal reflecting surfaces to cycle the light around, moving across the reflection surfaces gradually with each cycle through them, until the light reflects at an angle that escapes? Since photons interact only at the locus where they actually interfere and travels straight without confinement, the light doesn't need extra structure to segregate it. A long enough reflection path could emit light at its end only after a long time internally reflecting, which could offer enough time to move a properly positioned reflector "cap" over the entrance/exit. That device wouldn't slow light, but it would delay it, and then store it, entirely optically. Perhaps offering a purely photonic battery.
Am I making this up myself, or is it serendipity?
Gesundheit!
Well, that's what I meant by "perpetuity for derivatives". I still think the GPL is more complex than it needs to be for what it does. Which means that it's possible that it does more than what we think, if a good lawyer works it, including working against what we think.
I don't really get what's so "liberal" about this kind of inane overprotection of children from images of real adults. Sesame Street was a completely liberal invention: government TV to help raise children by presenting a friendly urban street with diverse, idiosyncratic neighbors. Dehumanizing it and refusing to trust parents to help their children interpret the images is pretty weird, but it's not "liberal".
The problem I'm talking about solving isn't that beautiful women are unapproachable. I'm married to one myself, after a long career of getting just a little closer than approaching.
I mentioned the party icebreaker only as one example, and conventions as another. There are limits to smalltalk that keep people from meeting who'd like to talk in depth, but only if there's something in common. Like seeing someone cute on a crowded subway, where striking up a conversation is mostly taboo, but which hasn't been locked down on phones yet. But of course there's lots more scenarios.
The point is that phones can do things that we can't unaided. If you don't want to do those things, don't bother. But stomping on people thinking about doing it is just antisocial.
We tried that for a long time, and it had problems. Using the phone doesn't stop you, it just give you another tool. But feel free to stay out of our way. BTW, why are you using Slashdot if that's your attitude?
"News for Nerds". You don't matter.
My having a private conversation with the hot chick while she fends off oafs like you swarming her makes you inept, not me.
I'd like to see Bluetooth accommodate a request to connect two phones that are held by people with no preexisting relationship. Like when you see someone cute at a party, you can send a request to their phone, with your picture attached, asking to talk. Maybe attach tags to the request, with some common interests, or some mutual friends. Before you even get their phone#. With an "ignore" button that can also blacklist permanently.
That would work great not only for meeting dates, but also at conventions. Phones could replace the greeting card, and really make social networks work.
Does the current Bluetooth protocol have any features to support that kind of app? Or does the protocol need some revision to make it work?