The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
That mostly means that people are buying high priced cars that they cannot actually afford and probably don't actually need. There is seldom any reason for most people to actually buy a new car. They depreciate like milk and mostly what you get for a new car is pride of new ownership. 60 months financing? That means you should be buying something else. Personally I haven't financed a car purchase in the last 15 years and baring economic catastrophe I don't plan to start. Financing a car (new or used) should be a last resort. It's a terrible use of money. Anyone who finances a car with 60+ month terms is almost certainly making a dumb financial decision.
That backup camera system and this will cost way more to the consumer than necessary. For an example, compare the OEM GPS systems with what you can buy on your own - this whole integrated in dash stuff making it cost more is bullshit.
The reason car electronics cost so much is that they don't sell very many of them, relatively speaking. Even cars that sell very well will only sell a few hundred thousand units per year and the design cycles are at least for a 4-8 year production run minimum. Electronics advances WAY faster than car companies can keep up with. The GPS in my truck (a 2009 model) is laughably obsolete albeit still useful. My company makes a part for a backup camera for one of the big US auto makers and the volumes simply aren't enough to get huge economies of scale even at a few hundred thousand a year. Plus they often do stupid stuff like design the parts to use custom connectors instead of off the shelf ones that would cost far less.
Frankly the auto makers should let the consumer electronics firms integrate their stuff into cars to handle the GPS, entertainment, telephony, etc. The car should provide the screen and an interface but let people bring their own electronics to the party. The auto makers just aren't good at it and don't do enough of it to ever realize economies of scale AND their design/production cycles are far too long. What should happen is that I should be able to take my phone into any car and have to car and the phone work together seamlessly.
This country is set up to put us into debt - one way or another.
Debt is a bit like nuclear power. It can be a powerful force for good or evil and you don't want to get any on you if you can avoid it. Some debt is fine and potentially very useful but that doesn't mean one should use debt financing just because one can. I could go out and finance a Tesla Model S tomorrow but that doesn't make it a good idea. Debt is a powerful tool and like most powerful tools if you don't know how to handle it then you are likely to get yourself in trouble.
And in the meantime, jobs are going overseas and are not being created fast enough here.
The data isn't backing you up on a macro-economic level. Unemployment right now is around 5-6% in most of the US which is historically a pretty normal amount. While there is some nuance to that number the facts don't bear out your assertion that "jobs are going oversease" any more than they ever have. As for jobs not being created fast enough here, that's a reasonable assertion to a degree but how fast is "fast enough" for you?
You'll forgive me for believing that that is a lie, because this has been explained many, many times. On the balance of probabilities, you are an irrational nutjob who is resistant to any actual explanation or evidence.
And based on your statement you'll forgive me for believing that you are a condescending asshole who looks down on people who ask a pretty straightforward question.
That said, I'll waste few minutes of my precious time pretending your question is sincere and you have a non-zero chance of changing your mind.
And the condescending asshole theory is confirmed. "Your precious time"? You're posting on slashdot. If you actually had better things to do you wouldn't be here. So drop the attitude. I didn't come here to insult you so I'd appreciate the same consideration.
Do you see why I think your question is dishonest?
I see that you are a condescending person who thinks I'm asking this question for reasons other than intellectual curiosity. You think it is "dishonest" to question why someone would strongly favor a hypothesis for which there is only indirect evidence and there are alternatives which haven't been ruled out? Curious logic you have there.
The reason why we focus on exotic matter is because observational evidence for a source of anomalous gravitational attraction is robust and diverse and alternative theories have either failed to account for it, or have failed other observational tests.
We have evidence that something in our model of the gravitational attraction in the universe is incomplete based on observations but have zero direct evidence of any actual exotic matter. The fact that we've tried theories other than exotic matter that have not panned out is evidence of nothing other than the fact that those particular theories were wrong. I don't doubt that some form of exotic matter is a very reasonable explanation but claiming it is the most plausible answer given the lack of direct evidence is illogical at this time. And it certainly doesn't excuse scientists from very often leaving out disclaimers that we really have no idea what dark matter is and that exotic matter is merely plausible but unconfirmed.
You can either change your mind, and agree that dark matter is the most plausible explanation of the robust and diverse observations, or you can explain why you find some alternative hypothesis more plausible.
I don't favor any particular hypothesis. Any answer we ultimately get to the question will be fascinating whether it be exotic matter or a revolutionary model of gravitation. Given that there is no actual direct evidence of exotic matter I remain unconvinced that exotic matter is any more or less plausible than other forms of modeling error. If you favor that particular hypothesis that's fine but don't pretend that you actually know the answer. If your point is that physicists favor exotic matter simple because the other theories haven't panned out then that's fine but you could have said that in one sentence without the insults or the attitude.
Of course it is a modeling error but which kind? Is it an error that there is some new particle or other physical phenomena that we haven't accounted for (like a new particle) or is there some error in the mathematical treatment (the "model") of the phenomena but no new physical phenomena exists? The discussion among physicists themselves certainly talks about both possibilities but that is NOT the case when the topic is brought up to those who do something other than physics for a living.
But to claim they are never talk about modeling errors represents a fundamental misunderstanding of research into dark matter or even the very concept of it.
You are misunderstanding what I'm (trying) to say. If you were to tune in NPR's Science Friday and they were to talk about dark matter, I guarantee that they would discuss the issue entirely from the perspective that it is simply some form of matter that we cannot see. The notion that it might be something like the shift from Newton's model to Einstein's which was primarily in the math treatment is almost never discussed. I'm calling it a modeling error to distinguish an error in the math model from the possibility of some undescribed form of matter/energy.
BTW, I have some background in physics myself. Worked in a research laboratory through college and have a minor in the subject. (Originally was a physics major) While I'm not a professional (far from it) I do know more than the average lay-person about the topic.
Plenty of people are working on modified models, such as alternatives to general relativity. There are papers coming out every week.
And yet they are basically never discussed when the topic comes up in the public discourse. I cannot remember the last time I saw a physicist talking about dark matter as a possible modeling error. I'm certain they do but the notion of dark matter actually being matter dominates the public discourse. Not shocking since it is by far the most interesting of the possible results but still...
Errors in measurements can be somewhat excluded as a possibility because many different measurements looking at different aspects and scales find the same result.
In many cases yes but certainly not off the table. Particularly if some key pieces of the puzzle turn out to be wrong. For (random made up) example if so called standard candles turn out to be not so standard after all. Unlikely I know but stranger things have come to pass.
Wondering why they have not been ruled out demonstrates lack of domain knowledge and awareness of what is being worked on, not a flaw in how it is being approached in research.
Has nothing to do with lack of domain knowledge. You almost NEVER hear physicists talking about dark matter in the public discourse as a possible modeling error. They ALWAYS refer to it as matter we cannot see. Heck the term dark matter itself strongly implies that they think it actually is matter. Otherwise why call it "matter"? I could be cynical and point out that hunting for model errors isn't a great way to get funding for the next particle accelerator but I don't think that is what is going on here. I think those in the field are perfectly well aware that it could be a modeling or measurement error but that's not very interesting or glamorous and so they never talk about it.
I realize the term Dark Matter is something of a placeholder for the cause of some as-yet unexplained observations but many people (including physicists) are taking the term quite literally There are three possibilities for what it could possibly be.
1) There is some form of exotic matter (or other phenomena) whose properties have yet to be discovered but which has a gravitational effect 2) There is an error in the measurements of the matter we can see 3) There is an error in the models we are using to describe the matter we can see
What I don't understand is why so many scientists are favoring 1 when 2 and/or 3 seem to be just as likely. 1 is the most exciting possibility but we have nothing more than indirect evidence for it. I'm waiting for someone to explain why so many seem so sure that it actually is some form of exotic matter. We've been down this road before. We couldn't explain phenomena like the orbit of Mercury until Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics was merely an approximation of the more accurate relativistic models. People were trying to use the observations as evidence that there might be some undiscovered matter when really it was an inaccurate model. We also make measurement errors all the time. I just don't get how we've ruled out a measurement error or a modeling error.
Now it's just a bunch of privileged rich kids playing with taxpayers toys... no wonder it's forty years since we accomplished anything great!
Well if you want to restart the Cold War I'm pretty sure you'll be able to get all kinds of funding. The Cold War was 99% of the reason we made it to the moon.
We don't even have a real space station yet, what a joke.
If you think the ISS isn't a "real space station" you should probably put down the Babylon 5 DVD and come visit the real world.
The ISS crew stays in their tin can for six month stints and seem to get along fine (from what we know, anyhow).
They get along fine but they also are only 200 miles from Earth and could come back down within a few hours/days in an emergency in most cases. Any trip to Mars is going to be substantially more isolated and getting home will be months if not years if possible at all. Radio to the ISS is more or less instantaneous. Close to Mars there would be 8-20 minutes of latency. While we can get useful info from the ISS astronauts, it isn't the same as a Mars mission. Not even close.
Seriously, I'd love to hear suggestions. I've got a niece in the first grade, brilliant little girl...
I hear you. Best current evidence is that the most influential thing to help girls find their way is to have a good role model. I heard about a study where the places that have the largest proportion of girls going into STEM is in areas like North Carolina's Research Triangle where there are a lot of good female role models working in the fields. Make sure she knows it is a real option. A good friend of my wife's is a doctor with young girls and she's made sure they know that such things are available to them and the kids are actually quite enthusiastic about science. (smart kids too so that helps)
I do a lot of coaching of high school age kids. One generalism I've noticed is that in sports boys need to play well to feel good about themselves. Girls are often the reverse. They seem to need to feel good about themselves to play well. No idea why that is but it seems to be frequently true. Maybe that might help you in some way. Good luck!
Well, presuming that women and men are equally qualified (which was one of the explicitly stated premises of the study), then that would make for a 50-50 mix, would it not?
No it would not because there are more men in the workplace than women overall, largely due to traditional gender roles. Furthermore there is an imbalance in some professions regarding the number of people that enter the profession. More men in engineering and construction. More women in nursing and clerical. Those issues occur FAR earlier than any hiring decision so it is not a 50-50 mix and probably never will be.
It will be rare that a workforce exactly matches the overall population ratio and doing so should never be the explicit goal. The goal is to create an environment where the only meaningful consideration is merit. If you do that well then you'll almost certainly have as diverse a workforce as is currently possible.
Yes, in a magical world populated by unicorns, rational humans, and the ability to accurately evaluate people's qualifications before hiring them, there are potentially better options. But we're stuck in this one.
Nice strawman. We don't even measure the qualifications we know about accurately or uniformly. Give the same resume with gender being the only thing changed and you get a different result? That means we aren't hiring based on merit. We're hiring based on societal pressure or comfort or some other principle.
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
It is also a form of institutionalized racism/sexism/ageism/etc. The intentions are good but it discriminates on a basis other than merit which ultimately is counterproductive. What is the point of saying you cannot discriminate on the basis of race and then discriminating on the basis of race? Makes no sense.
It also does not require that a group necessarily actually be a minority. Women technically outnumber men in the overall population so they cannot be considered a minority outside of specifically defined groups.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
If you consider gender in the decision then it IS sexism. Period. You can argue whether it is justified but you are simply substituting one form of sexism for another. It devalues merit in favor of
Is it still sexism if it's correcting an existing sexist imbalance?
Yes. If gender is a consideration that influences the decision then it is by definition sexism. We can argue about whether it is justified or not (I think not) but it unquestionably IS sexism.
until then the choices are (A) preferentially hire women, or (B) hire an equal mix and wait until all the existing faculty retires (probably at least a generation or two) for the gender mix to equalize.
Incomplete set of choices. There are other options. The best option is to hire the most qualified individuals without regard to gender. Generally speaking unless there is a supply imbalance (which does happen sometimes) hiring the best people tends to take care of the diversity problems. Talent in STEM generally has little to do with gender or ethnicity or country of origin or age or even sexual orientation. Hire the best people and you'll get a diverse workforce in most cases rather naturally.
The problem is that people tend to hire who they are comfortable with rather than hire the best available candidates. This is how you end up with executive teams with nothing but old white men. Look at how much of a monoculture an organization is if you want to know whether they truly value identifying and promoting the best available people.
I should say that I'd be more strongly opposed to the practice if it were occurring in industry, but we're talking about a college
Makes no difference. College is just another type of industry. Hire the best people. Period.
step away from the koolaide and recognize collectors on a 1st gen buying spree for what it is.
What koolaid? I have no personal interest in Apple's watch at all. I'm just calling it like I see it. I think Apple is going to sell quite a few of these watches unless they have made some catastrophic mistake I'm not aware of yet. I think a lot of people will find it useful and a lot more will keep not wearing a watch. Obviously given the preliminary sales figures there is a lot of interest out there. Will be interesting to see the early reviews and whether the sales can be sustained.
This is going to end like all those Tesla orders in China
Riiight. Because a $100,000 supercar is a lot like a $400 wristwatch. Totally the same... [/sarcasm]
Ever seen the bumper sticker "Eat shit, a million flies can't be wrong"? That about sums up my feelings on the issue.
Could not agree more. Clearly many folks were entertained but wow those were some bad movies.
I understand the motive, but that doesn't change the fact that they took a moderately interesting franchise
Moderately interesting franchise? Maybe if you have rose colored glasses from your youth. Some of the comics were kinda-sorta ok stories but none of it was particularly good. I grew up with transformers - they were the big thing during part of my youth. But try watching any of the animation as an adult. It's complete crap designed solely to market toys to kids. Seriously, it's unwatchable. If anything the Michael Bay movies are better but that is the very definition of damning with faint praise. I saw the first movie out of nostalgia and have seen bits of the later ones but they were definitely not good movies. I'm sure someone could do something interesting with it but it won't be Michael Bay. Some cool special effects and Megan Fox's ass are not enough to make a movie worth watching.
Umm, why? Seriously why? Unless you get thrown out of a boat I really cannot think of any reason why I would ever consider swimming with my smartphone even if it were waterproof. I'm open minded about reasons but I seriously cannot think of any sensible reason to do this.
Smartwatches were the #1 most returned tech item of 2014.
If true all that means is that those particular smartwatches were absolute rubbish. And I don't doubt that many of them were bad. Being first to market isn't necessarily an advantage because everyone else gets to learn from your mistakes. There were smartphones before Apple introduced the iPhone but pretty much every meaningful smartphone afterwards is clearly influenced by the iPhone. Just because other companies produced a junk product doesn't mean Apple's will automatically suck. Apple's got a pretty good track record but they have had their share of dud products too. Only time will tell on this one.
But this time around, it's Apple fans buying the product. So who will win in this epic battle of Apple false superiority and arrogant smugness versus the strong urge to return their useless, annoying product.
So you think that the product is crap despite the fact that you've never laid a finger on one and thus couldn't possibly know. Curious argument you have there. Personally I prefer to actually try a device before declaring it to be crap. Maybe it is crap but you sure as hell don't know.
I wear a watch daily. Sometimes I like to know what time it is.
I do not wear a watch daily and I almost always know what time it is. As I type this I have 3 clocks within eyesight (computer monitor, phone on my desk and wall clock) and another 6 within 50 feet of where I stand. I have two in my car, one in most rooms I enter, one on most computers, my thermostat and of course my phone. I don't have a problem with anyone wearing a watch but I personally find them uncomfortable and highly redundant. Why would I want to wear a slightly bulky uni-tasking redundant device?
Not everyone carries a phone with them everywhere they go.
True but even when I don't have mine with me I almost always have a clock nearby. Again, nothing against watches but for most people they are a bit anachronistic.
Except more portable and weatherproof. There are plenty of times when a smartphone is too cumbersome or would be damaged. While some people do carry them, exercising with a large smartphone is awkward at best. Good luck swimming with your smartphone. Plenty of other times a watch would be a preferable form factor. A very compact portable sensor package is a useful thing. Most people will be served just fine with a smartphone (I'm one of them) but I can see plenty of use cases for something like a smartwatch.
The younger generation that never knew life without a smartphone, never understood the value of wearing a wristwatch.
Older chronometer watches did nothing but tell time. A useful feature but kind of pointless if you have clocks all around you. Plenty of young people see the value in them, they just don't see the point in wearing one 24/7.
What will really blow your mind is that is now the same individual lining up to pay someone else $500 for the luxury of wearing one. Talk about brand power.
The various smartwatches are NOT the same thing as your old Timex wristwatch. They do a lot more than just tell time. Your argument is akin to comparing a basic flip-phone that just makes phone calls to a modern smartphone. The use cases overlap but they are NOT the same thing and will not be used for the same purposes. These new watches have a sensor package, data logging, pager/smartphone features and more plus of course they can tell time. You may or may not have a use for Apple's watch (I do not) but plenty of people clearly do. Apple's reputation for delivering useful products helps get folks to think about it but if the device isn't actually genuinely useful/interesting and doesn't work well then sales will drop like an anvil.
I think the Apple Watch will sell fairly well if the functionality is there. I don't think it will be as big a blockbuster as the iPad or iPhone but I think enough people will find it interesting/useful enough to be a nice business line for Apple.
I wear a cheap, waterproof, digital, rubberised, lasts-forever watch that costs an absolute pittance. It shows time and date on the front screen, which is my biggest buying point of them.
Which is NOT why anyone would buy a smartwatch. If all you want is a simple chronometer then buy a simple chronometer. Odds are you have one already. The various new smartwatches are something different. Think of them as a small sensor package combined with a data logger and some basic smartphone features. The use cases are different and the target audience is different. It's like comparing a smartphone to an old basic cell phone. The smartphone is a computer that happens to make phone calls. The old phone is phone and little else. Different devices with overlapping but different use cases.
I have no use at all for Apple's watch but I can see some people who might find it fits their life. I also have no use for a simple watch since there are almost always at least 2-3 clocks within eye shot or easily accessible in my daily life. I honestly cannot fathom why most people would ever need or want to wear a simple wristwatch unless they are doing something like running.
This is a logic I just don't get, but seems extremely common amongst/. readers.
Why? Do you think that all reviews are honest, legitimate and well formed opinions about the services provided by people who would actually be in a position to provide such a review? If so then you are being rather naive/foolish and I doubt you actually are. You can get useful information even if some of the "reviews" are fake but you need to read them with some default skepticism.
Some things just aren't worth the time it would take to come to a good decision without using reviews, and using reviews (with a pinch of salt) has worked consistently.
Nobody (sane) is saying don't use the reviews. Just have the default assumption that they may not be honest unbiased opinions because to do otherwise is foolish. It's not too hard usually to figure out useful information from online reviews but doing so does require a certain amount of skepticism.
Yes, I agree because no one that has ever clicked a check box anywhere has ever lied before.
Doesn't matter if they lie or not for it to be useful. Reason is that it forces them to either A) disclose that they have been paid or B) violate the terms of service.
The IRS uses this exact same tactic on your 1040 form. Look at line 21 of the current 1040 Form and you'll see "Other Income List Type and Amount". This applies whether or not the income is legally obtained. So this is where someone dealing in illegal drugs would be required to disclose their income. If they do not disclose their (illegal) income then they have committed tax fraud. This is how Al Capone was busted - not for the actual crimes but for tax evasion on those crimes.
If I see a bunch of 1 star reviews saying it breaks after several months of use, I'm going to go onto the next product.
You have to bear in mind that sometimes the 1 star reviews are quite useless/fake. I was looking at a water heater on Amazon recently and there were a lot of one star reviews claiming the product broke and was terrible but most of the reviews were actually for a different and older version of the product which was no longer in production. I've also seen 1 star reviews that were clearly designed to astroturf the product.
Point is, presume any review has ulterior motives unless you have evidence to think otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
That mostly means that people are buying high priced cars that they cannot actually afford and probably don't actually need. There is seldom any reason for most people to actually buy a new car. They depreciate like milk and mostly what you get for a new car is pride of new ownership. 60 months financing? That means you should be buying something else. Personally I haven't financed a car purchase in the last 15 years and baring economic catastrophe I don't plan to start. Financing a car (new or used) should be a last resort. It's a terrible use of money. Anyone who finances a car with 60+ month terms is almost certainly making a dumb financial decision.
That backup camera system and this will cost way more to the consumer than necessary. For an example, compare the OEM GPS systems with what you can buy on your own - this whole integrated in dash stuff making it cost more is bullshit.
The reason car electronics cost so much is that they don't sell very many of them, relatively speaking. Even cars that sell very well will only sell a few hundred thousand units per year and the design cycles are at least for a 4-8 year production run minimum. Electronics advances WAY faster than car companies can keep up with. The GPS in my truck (a 2009 model) is laughably obsolete albeit still useful. My company makes a part for a backup camera for one of the big US auto makers and the volumes simply aren't enough to get huge economies of scale even at a few hundred thousand a year. Plus they often do stupid stuff like design the parts to use custom connectors instead of off the shelf ones that would cost far less.
Frankly the auto makers should let the consumer electronics firms integrate their stuff into cars to handle the GPS, entertainment, telephony, etc. The car should provide the screen and an interface but let people bring their own electronics to the party. The auto makers just aren't good at it and don't do enough of it to ever realize economies of scale AND their design/production cycles are far too long. What should happen is that I should be able to take my phone into any car and have to car and the phone work together seamlessly.
This country is set up to put us into debt - one way or another.
Debt is a bit like nuclear power. It can be a powerful force for good or evil and you don't want to get any on you if you can avoid it. Some debt is fine and potentially very useful but that doesn't mean one should use debt financing just because one can. I could go out and finance a Tesla Model S tomorrow but that doesn't make it a good idea. Debt is a powerful tool and like most powerful tools if you don't know how to handle it then you are likely to get yourself in trouble.
And in the meantime, jobs are going overseas and are not being created fast enough here.
The data isn't backing you up on a macro-economic level. Unemployment right now is around 5-6% in most of the US which is historically a pretty normal amount. While there is some nuance to that number the facts don't bear out your assertion that "jobs are going oversease" any more than they ever have. As for jobs not being created fast enough here, that's a reasonable assertion to a degree but how fast is "fast enough" for you?
You'll forgive me for believing that that is a lie, because this has been explained many, many times. On the balance of probabilities, you are an irrational nutjob who is resistant to any actual explanation or evidence.
And based on your statement you'll forgive me for believing that you are a condescending asshole who looks down on people who ask a pretty straightforward question.
That said, I'll waste few minutes of my precious time pretending your question is sincere and you have a non-zero chance of changing your mind.
And the condescending asshole theory is confirmed. "Your precious time"? You're posting on slashdot. If you actually had better things to do you wouldn't be here. So drop the attitude. I didn't come here to insult you so I'd appreciate the same consideration.
Do you see why I think your question is dishonest?
I see that you are a condescending person who thinks I'm asking this question for reasons other than intellectual curiosity. You think it is "dishonest" to question why someone would strongly favor a hypothesis for which there is only indirect evidence and there are alternatives which haven't been ruled out? Curious logic you have there.
The reason why we focus on exotic matter is because observational evidence for a source of anomalous gravitational attraction is robust and diverse and alternative theories have either failed to account for it, or have failed other observational tests.
We have evidence that something in our model of the gravitational attraction in the universe is incomplete based on observations but have zero direct evidence of any actual exotic matter. The fact that we've tried theories other than exotic matter that have not panned out is evidence of nothing other than the fact that those particular theories were wrong. I don't doubt that some form of exotic matter is a very reasonable explanation but claiming it is the most plausible answer given the lack of direct evidence is illogical at this time. And it certainly doesn't excuse scientists from very often leaving out disclaimers that we really have no idea what dark matter is and that exotic matter is merely plausible but unconfirmed.
You can either change your mind, and agree that dark matter is the most plausible explanation of the robust and diverse observations, or you can explain why you find some alternative hypothesis more plausible.
I don't favor any particular hypothesis. Any answer we ultimately get to the question will be fascinating whether it be exotic matter or a revolutionary model of gravitation. Given that there is no actual direct evidence of exotic matter I remain unconvinced that exotic matter is any more or less plausible than other forms of modeling error. If you favor that particular hypothesis that's fine but don't pretend that you actually know the answer. If your point is that physicists favor exotic matter simple because the other theories haven't panned out then that's fine but you could have said that in one sentence without the insults or the attitude.
Dark matter IS a modeling error.
Of course it is a modeling error but which kind? Is it an error that there is some new particle or other physical phenomena that we haven't accounted for (like a new particle) or is there some error in the mathematical treatment (the "model") of the phenomena but no new physical phenomena exists? The discussion among physicists themselves certainly talks about both possibilities but that is NOT the case when the topic is brought up to those who do something other than physics for a living.
But to claim they are never talk about modeling errors represents a fundamental misunderstanding of research into dark matter or even the very concept of it.
You are misunderstanding what I'm (trying) to say. If you were to tune in NPR's Science Friday and they were to talk about dark matter, I guarantee that they would discuss the issue entirely from the perspective that it is simply some form of matter that we cannot see. The notion that it might be something like the shift from Newton's model to Einstein's which was primarily in the math treatment is almost never discussed. I'm calling it a modeling error to distinguish an error in the math model from the possibility of some undescribed form of matter/energy.
BTW, I have some background in physics myself. Worked in a research laboratory through college and have a minor in the subject. (Originally was a physics major) While I'm not a professional (far from it) I do know more than the average lay-person about the topic.
Plenty of people are working on modified models, such as alternatives to general relativity. There are papers coming out every week.
And yet they are basically never discussed when the topic comes up in the public discourse. I cannot remember the last time I saw a physicist talking about dark matter as a possible modeling error. I'm certain they do but the notion of dark matter actually being matter dominates the public discourse. Not shocking since it is by far the most interesting of the possible results but still...
Errors in measurements can be somewhat excluded as a possibility because many different measurements looking at different aspects and scales find the same result.
In many cases yes but certainly not off the table. Particularly if some key pieces of the puzzle turn out to be wrong. For (random made up) example if so called standard candles turn out to be not so standard after all. Unlikely I know but stranger things have come to pass.
Wondering why they have not been ruled out demonstrates lack of domain knowledge and awareness of what is being worked on, not a flaw in how it is being approached in research.
Has nothing to do with lack of domain knowledge. You almost NEVER hear physicists talking about dark matter in the public discourse as a possible modeling error. They ALWAYS refer to it as matter we cannot see. Heck the term dark matter itself strongly implies that they think it actually is matter. Otherwise why call it "matter"? I could be cynical and point out that hunting for model errors isn't a great way to get funding for the next particle accelerator but I don't think that is what is going on here. I think those in the field are perfectly well aware that it could be a modeling or measurement error but that's not very interesting or glamorous and so they never talk about it.
I realize the term Dark Matter is something of a placeholder for the cause of some as-yet unexplained observations but many people (including physicists) are taking the term quite literally There are three possibilities for what it could possibly be.
1) There is some form of exotic matter (or other phenomena) whose properties have yet to be discovered but which has a gravitational effect
2) There is an error in the measurements of the matter we can see
3) There is an error in the models we are using to describe the matter we can see
What I don't understand is why so many scientists are favoring 1 when 2 and/or 3 seem to be just as likely. 1 is the most exciting possibility but we have nothing more than indirect evidence for it. I'm waiting for someone to explain why so many seem so sure that it actually is some form of exotic matter. We've been down this road before. We couldn't explain phenomena like the orbit of Mercury until Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics was merely an approximation of the more accurate relativistic models. People were trying to use the observations as evidence that there might be some undiscovered matter when really it was an inaccurate model. We also make measurement errors all the time. I just don't get how we've ruled out a measurement error or a modeling error.
Now it's just a bunch of privileged rich kids playing with taxpayers toys ... no wonder it's forty years since we accomplished anything great!
Well if you want to restart the Cold War I'm pretty sure you'll be able to get all kinds of funding. The Cold War was 99% of the reason we made it to the moon.
We don't even have a real space station yet, what a joke.
If you think the ISS isn't a "real space station" you should probably put down the Babylon 5 DVD and come visit the real world.
The ISS crew stays in their tin can for six month stints and seem to get along fine (from what we know, anyhow).
They get along fine but they also are only 200 miles from Earth and could come back down within a few hours/days in an emergency in most cases. Any trip to Mars is going to be substantially more isolated and getting home will be months if not years if possible at all. Radio to the ISS is more or less instantaneous. Close to Mars there would be 8-20 minutes of latency. While we can get useful info from the ISS astronauts, it isn't the same as a Mars mission. Not even close.
Seems like it is sexual assault.
It is. Unambiguously.
Why didn't the TSA refer this to law enforcement?
Because TSA is law enforcement or at least thinks they are.
Here's the video. I like how they called it a RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly)
Seriously, I'd love to hear suggestions. I've got a niece in the first grade, brilliant little girl...
I hear you. Best current evidence is that the most influential thing to help girls find their way is to have a good role model. I heard about a study where the places that have the largest proportion of girls going into STEM is in areas like North Carolina's Research Triangle where there are a lot of good female role models working in the fields. Make sure she knows it is a real option. A good friend of my wife's is a doctor with young girls and she's made sure they know that such things are available to them and the kids are actually quite enthusiastic about science. (smart kids too so that helps)
I do a lot of coaching of high school age kids. One generalism I've noticed is that in sports boys need to play well to feel good about themselves. Girls are often the reverse. They seem to need to feel good about themselves to play well. No idea why that is but it seems to be frequently true. Maybe that might help you in some way. Good luck!
Well, presuming that women and men are equally qualified (which was one of the explicitly stated premises of the study), then that would make for a 50-50 mix, would it not?
No it would not because there are more men in the workplace than women overall, largely due to traditional gender roles. Furthermore there is an imbalance in some professions regarding the number of people that enter the profession. More men in engineering and construction. More women in nursing and clerical. Those issues occur FAR earlier than any hiring decision so it is not a 50-50 mix and probably never will be.
It will be rare that a workforce exactly matches the overall population ratio and doing so should never be the explicit goal. The goal is to create an environment where the only meaningful consideration is merit. If you do that well then you'll almost certainly have as diverse a workforce as is currently possible.
Yes, in a magical world populated by unicorns, rational humans, and the ability to accurately evaluate people's qualifications before hiring them, there are potentially better options. But we're stuck in this one.
Nice strawman. We don't even measure the qualifications we know about accurately or uniformly. Give the same resume with gender being the only thing changed and you get a different result? That means we aren't hiring based on merit. We're hiring based on societal pressure or comfort or some other principle.
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
It is also a form of institutionalized racism/sexism/ageism/etc. The intentions are good but it discriminates on a basis other than merit which ultimately is counterproductive. What is the point of saying you cannot discriminate on the basis of race and then discriminating on the basis of race? Makes no sense.
It also does not require that a group necessarily actually be a minority. Women technically outnumber men in the overall population so they cannot be considered a minority outside of specifically defined groups.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
If you consider gender in the decision then it IS sexism. Period. You can argue whether it is justified but you are simply substituting one form of sexism for another. It devalues merit in favor of
Is it still sexism if it's correcting an existing sexist imbalance?
Yes. If gender is a consideration that influences the decision then it is by definition sexism. We can argue about whether it is justified or not (I think not) but it unquestionably IS sexism.
until then the choices are (A) preferentially hire women, or (B) hire an equal mix and wait until all the existing faculty retires (probably at least a generation or two) for the gender mix to equalize.
Incomplete set of choices. There are other options. The best option is to hire the most qualified individuals without regard to gender. Generally speaking unless there is a supply imbalance (which does happen sometimes) hiring the best people tends to take care of the diversity problems. Talent in STEM generally has little to do with gender or ethnicity or country of origin or age or even sexual orientation. Hire the best people and you'll get a diverse workforce in most cases rather naturally.
The problem is that people tend to hire who they are comfortable with rather than hire the best available candidates. This is how you end up with executive teams with nothing but old white men. Look at how much of a monoculture an organization is if you want to know whether they truly value identifying and promoting the best available people.
I should say that I'd be more strongly opposed to the practice if it were occurring in industry, but we're talking about a college
Makes no difference. College is just another type of industry. Hire the best people. Period.
step away from the koolaide and recognize collectors on a 1st gen buying spree for what it is.
What koolaid? I have no personal interest in Apple's watch at all. I'm just calling it like I see it. I think Apple is going to sell quite a few of these watches unless they have made some catastrophic mistake I'm not aware of yet. I think a lot of people will find it useful and a lot more will keep not wearing a watch. Obviously given the preliminary sales figures there is a lot of interest out there. Will be interesting to see the early reviews and whether the sales can be sustained.
This is going to end like all those Tesla orders in China
Riiight. Because a $100,000 supercar is a lot like a $400 wristwatch. Totally the same... [/sarcasm]
Ever seen the bumper sticker "Eat shit, a million flies can't be wrong"? That about sums up my feelings on the issue.
Could not agree more. Clearly many folks were entertained but wow those were some bad movies.
I understand the motive, but that doesn't change the fact that they took a moderately interesting franchise
Moderately interesting franchise? Maybe if you have rose colored glasses from your youth. Some of the comics were kinda-sorta ok stories but none of it was particularly good. I grew up with transformers - they were the big thing during part of my youth. But try watching any of the animation as an adult. It's complete crap designed solely to market toys to kids. Seriously, it's unwatchable. If anything the Michael Bay movies are better but that is the very definition of damning with faint praise. I saw the first movie out of nostalgia and have seen bits of the later ones but they were definitely not good movies. I'm sure someone could do something interesting with it but it won't be Michael Bay. Some cool special effects and Megan Fox's ass are not enough to make a movie worth watching.
I've swum with my last two smartphones.
Umm, why? Seriously why? Unless you get thrown out of a boat I really cannot think of any reason why I would ever consider swimming with my smartphone even if it were waterproof. I'm open minded about reasons but I seriously cannot think of any sensible reason to do this.
Smartwatches were the #1 most returned tech item of 2014.
If true all that means is that those particular smartwatches were absolute rubbish. And I don't doubt that many of them were bad. Being first to market isn't necessarily an advantage because everyone else gets to learn from your mistakes. There were smartphones before Apple introduced the iPhone but pretty much every meaningful smartphone afterwards is clearly influenced by the iPhone. Just because other companies produced a junk product doesn't mean Apple's will automatically suck. Apple's got a pretty good track record but they have had their share of dud products too. Only time will tell on this one.
But this time around, it's Apple fans buying the product. So who will win in this epic battle of Apple false superiority and arrogant smugness versus the strong urge to return their useless, annoying product.
So you think that the product is crap despite the fact that you've never laid a finger on one and thus couldn't possibly know. Curious argument you have there. Personally I prefer to actually try a device before declaring it to be crap. Maybe it is crap but you sure as hell don't know.
I wear a watch daily. Sometimes I like to know what time it is.
I do not wear a watch daily and I almost always know what time it is. As I type this I have 3 clocks within eyesight (computer monitor, phone on my desk and wall clock) and another 6 within 50 feet of where I stand. I have two in my car, one in most rooms I enter, one on most computers, my thermostat and of course my phone. I don't have a problem with anyone wearing a watch but I personally find them uncomfortable and highly redundant. Why would I want to wear a slightly bulky uni-tasking redundant device?
Not everyone carries a phone with them everywhere they go.
True but even when I don't have mine with me I almost always have a clock nearby. Again, nothing against watches but for most people they are a bit anachronistic.
Like... the smartphone that's in my pocket.
Except more portable and weatherproof. There are plenty of times when a smartphone is too cumbersome or would be damaged. While some people do carry them, exercising with a large smartphone is awkward at best. Good luck swimming with your smartphone. Plenty of other times a watch would be a preferable form factor. A very compact portable sensor package is a useful thing. Most people will be served just fine with a smartphone (I'm one of them) but I can see plenty of use cases for something like a smartwatch.
The younger generation that never knew life without a smartphone, never understood the value of wearing a wristwatch.
Older chronometer watches did nothing but tell time. A useful feature but kind of pointless if you have clocks all around you. Plenty of young people see the value in them, they just don't see the point in wearing one 24/7.
What will really blow your mind is that is now the same individual lining up to pay someone else $500 for the luxury of wearing one. Talk about brand power.
The various smartwatches are NOT the same thing as your old Timex wristwatch. They do a lot more than just tell time. Your argument is akin to comparing a basic flip-phone that just makes phone calls to a modern smartphone. The use cases overlap but they are NOT the same thing and will not be used for the same purposes. These new watches have a sensor package, data logging, pager/smartphone features and more plus of course they can tell time. You may or may not have a use for Apple's watch (I do not) but plenty of people clearly do. Apple's reputation for delivering useful products helps get folks to think about it but if the device isn't actually genuinely useful/interesting and doesn't work well then sales will drop like an anvil.
I think the Apple Watch will sell fairly well if the functionality is there. I don't think it will be as big a blockbuster as the iPad or iPhone but I think enough people will find it interesting/useful enough to be a nice business line for Apple.
I wear a cheap, waterproof, digital, rubberised, lasts-forever watch that costs an absolute pittance. It shows time and date on the front screen, which is my biggest buying point of them.
Which is NOT why anyone would buy a smartwatch. If all you want is a simple chronometer then buy a simple chronometer. Odds are you have one already. The various new smartwatches are something different. Think of them as a small sensor package combined with a data logger and some basic smartphone features. The use cases are different and the target audience is different. It's like comparing a smartphone to an old basic cell phone. The smartphone is a computer that happens to make phone calls. The old phone is phone and little else. Different devices with overlapping but different use cases.
I have no use at all for Apple's watch but I can see some people who might find it fits their life. I also have no use for a simple watch since there are almost always at least 2-3 clocks within eye shot or easily accessible in my daily life. I honestly cannot fathom why most people would ever need or want to wear a simple wristwatch unless they are doing something like running.
This is a logic I just don't get, but seems extremely common amongst /. readers.
Why? Do you think that all reviews are honest, legitimate and well formed opinions about the services provided by people who would actually be in a position to provide such a review? If so then you are being rather naive/foolish and I doubt you actually are. You can get useful information even if some of the "reviews" are fake but you need to read them with some default skepticism.
Some things just aren't worth the time it would take to come to a good decision without using reviews, and using reviews (with a pinch of salt) has worked consistently.
Nobody (sane) is saying don't use the reviews. Just have the default assumption that they may not be honest unbiased opinions because to do otherwise is foolish. It's not too hard usually to figure out useful information from online reviews but doing so does require a certain amount of skepticism.
Yes, I agree because no one that has ever clicked a check box anywhere has ever lied before.
Doesn't matter if they lie or not for it to be useful. Reason is that it forces them to either A) disclose that they have been paid or B) violate the terms of service.
The IRS uses this exact same tactic on your 1040 form. Look at line 21 of the current 1040 Form and you'll see "Other Income List Type and Amount". This applies whether or not the income is legally obtained. So this is where someone dealing in illegal drugs would be required to disclose their income. If they do not disclose their (illegal) income then they have committed tax fraud. This is how Al Capone was busted - not for the actual crimes but for tax evasion on those crimes.
If I see a bunch of 1 star reviews saying it breaks after several months of use, I'm going to go onto the next product.
You have to bear in mind that sometimes the 1 star reviews are quite useless/fake. I was looking at a water heater on Amazon recently and there were a lot of one star reviews claiming the product broke and was terrible but most of the reviews were actually for a different and older version of the product which was no longer in production. I've also seen 1 star reviews that were clearly designed to astroturf the product.
Point is, presume any review has ulterior motives unless you have evidence to think otherwise.
Obligatory xkcd
Another xkcd