For once marketing twats aren't to blame. If, as I have, you go to see lots of venture capitalists (VC's) you'll hear this crap all the time, only last year it was B2C (Business to Consumer) and this year it will be B2B (Business to business) and early indications is that next year they'll all want to hear that your company is B2B2C (guess).
It's all part of VC culture - they don't actually know why some companies they invest in fail and why some succeed so they are absolute suckers for a load of buzzwords wrapped up as a good business model. It is amazing how fasion conscious they are.
Do news servers still recognise the old cancel request, or is it dead? If not, then PH might be better off sending out cancel messages than trying to trace Usenet users.
On what other topics am I receiving a biased viewpoint
You are receiving a biased viewpoint on every topic. On/. it's fairly obvious what the bias is, it's places where you're not aware of the bias (eg your own head) that are dangerous.
Thomas Edison invents electric light bulb... Candlemaker's Guild cries foul.
No, no. Candlemaker's guild cries `Reverse Engineering must be outlawed to allow for innovation in the candle industry'. And hires a buch of lawyers to threaten Universities where students have been heard discussing the light bulb.
Are rich corporations with armies of lawyers the only ones who will benefit from this law?
Yes. That's what they paid their politicians to design and pass, and that's what they got.
In fact, the main hope of it being repealed is that it might start hurting other rich corporations, who might then pay their politicians to scrap the act.
Reverse engineering deprives manufacturers of revenue for innovation.
Presumably by creating a market for their hardware. They must be gutted, what with all those extra sales reducing revenue.
For example, Gnome and Kde desktops ripoffs of the Windows interface.
Or are they ripoffs of the Mac that MS copied?
Or maybe they're ripoffs of the Xerox machines that Apple copied, that MS copied.
Or maybe they're ripoffs of the 14 other computer systems that Xerox say influenced them, that Apple copied, that MS copied (badly).
Or maybe in the real world this is how progress is made: not by preventing others from improving your ideas by sitting on them until they rot.
I assume that you are irritated daily by the sight of petrol-driven cars which are just ripoffs of the proper steam-driven devices of your youth.
Manufacters have a right to protect their intellectual property rights with features which thwart attempts to reverse engineer or to copy without authorization.
Did you just use the term "Shit hot" to descibe a monitor? Man, I almost fell outta my seat..
Well, that's how the "sales clerks" in Dixon's talk. They only get an hours training tocover all the products in the shop, and generally this training seems to consist of learning ways of saying that each item is fantastic, shit hot, cutting-edge, great value for money, etc. etc.
I'd happily pay for a DVD player for Linux, but not if I know that a lot of the money is going to a bunch of bastards that have nothing to do with the product other than they'll sue if they don't get their cut. So, forget it.
Or, better, use some of the funding to move to a country which doesn't recognise these stupid, unethical, "patents" and copyrights and write and release the program from there.
Clerk:Why? Woman: What's the quality on your TV like? Clerk: Pretty poor. Woman: What's the quality on your monitor like? Clerk: Shit hot. OH! I get it. Woman: Just sit closer to the monitor and pretent it's 31".
TWW
Re:A cautionary tale of Web design
on
Boo No More
·
· Score: 1
It had javascript, flash and java, as well as dictating the screen size and having full-screen graphics of dubious design and purpose. In short, it was marketing crap to the nth degree.
In addition, their business plan stunk like 6-day old fish.
The only thing this proves is that stupid ideas done badly by stupid people are not a good investment.
I don't know of any specific gravitational physicist who will not admit that GR could be wrong.
I'm not talking about GR being wrong, the issue is applicability. I'd be astounded if GR was to be proved just plain old wrong. Not universally applicable, I could cope with.
I don't think singularities are a problem because they're "bizarre". There are plenty of bizarre things that are true. I think they're a problem because they are a literal breakdown in the theory -- physics fails to make predictions.
Er, wasn't that my original point - that they are a literal breakdown in the theory rather than being a reliable prediction of the theory? I'm sorry I ever mentioned my musings on the event horizons.
I would be interested to see if you can produce the name (and relevant quotation) of a physicist -- a contemporary would be the most interesting
Well, I don't actually know your name. Joke.
We have libel laws in this country and I'm logged on but the specific example I had in mind when I wrote that is one of the people you mentioned, was a big fan of the steady state, and had a run-in with Hawkings at the Royal Society in the days when Hawkings could still walk and speak unaided. I assume that's enough for you.
Not really comtemporary any more, I admit, but that's who I was thinking of.
Losing one's temper in a debate is a sure sign of the "high priest" mentality, regardless of how one is treated by colleagues .
This has been an interesting display of why newsgroups are better than/. for debates; I'm sick of typing into this little box.
Hope you can reply one last time, but I don't think there's much else to say on this topic, especially as we seem to agree on all the important points of the physics and disagree on most of the human issues. Perhaps I've just met too many bent scientists for my own good. Or perhaps you haven't met enough.
You do realise that the ability to do booklete printing is built into the print functions of must drivers for win?
It is now, when I gave up on Windows the only way to do booklets was to download the unix utils and compile them under Windoze.
By the time M$ heard of these (decades old) programs, I'd given up on them and their crappy OS (which still can't read postscript, FFS!).
Besides, the point was that the CLI allows more complex manipulations than a GUI. Obviously, one response is to just wait until a specialised program is released that does what you need.
I mean, I would hate to think you were too stupid have have spoekn without looking.
Once upon a time, general relativity was a scientific theory with no experimental results. Does that mean that Einstein wasn't doing science?
Not true: there were observational results which Einstein was trying to encompass, in this case the results came before the theory.
I never said a single thing about anyone's exclusive right or lack thereof to speculate on the nature of the universe.
Your dismissive attitude to "laymen" says otherwise.
Actually you said a lot more, including the insistence that scientists refuse to consider the possibility that GR may be modified at event-horizon level curvatures, or really that they are unwilling to consider alternatives to GR.
I didn't say that-I may have suggested that some do and that you in particular had a problem but I never generalised to the degree you suggest.
At least this theory is motivated by an enormous body of evidence in the quantum nature of matter.
It is indeed, which is why I think it's true. But, as you said, evidence for the quantum nature of gravity is still out of reach. It is mearly a thought (perhaps its a scientific theory) that the reason it's been so hard to prove is that it's not true. Perhaps. But doubtful. Remain calm.
"scientists are so sure they're right about event horizons, they never consider the possibility they're wrong".
Don't put things in quotes unless they're quotes. I never said this. I said something similar in reference to some scientists.
Pioneer (not Voyager)
Yes, I think I was confusing an article about Voyager's range data being used to put a limit on the cosmological constant.
I suggested that some people have an interest in keeping theories in which they are experts alive.
Actually you didn't, though it is true.
What did you think I meant when I said "I know there is a lot of grant money (and book money) based on assuming there is nothing more to be learnt about these objects,"?
an interest in keeping's one's theory alive doesn't translate into an orthodoxy that refuses to consider evidence.
That's why physical sciences are better than most human fields in getting over dogma. Maths is even better.
What you did suggest was that it is a mistake to consider results to reflect reality merely because they seem "bizarre"
I was referring to purely theoretical results, not experimental results, although they can lead into trouble too. The danger here is a human one: bizarre results = publicity = grant possibilities and or status (if right). Ask Fleischman and Pons (at least one of whom got a well paid job in Japan to follow up on their data).
that many "mathematicians" think that bizarre results (presumably event horizons) are a "breakthrough" (I think this is funny,
I was being glib, so it was supposed to be a bit funny, but there are cases when it happens (the magical neural net for the travelling salesman problem, for example) but actually I meant singularities.
that physicists accept singularities because duh, they can't think of what else might happen in a collapse,
It's still true - simple extrapolation that leads to a bizarre (there's that word again) result should be treated with a lot of caution. Extrapolation should always be treated with caution. I seem to remeber Mark Twain commenting on the fact that, given the rate at which the Mississippi delta move upstream each year that 2000 years ago it must have stuck 300miles into space.
that making speculative hypotheses is "deeply unscientific" (when in fact it's what theorists have been doing all the way back to Galileo, Newton, Kepler, etc.), that hypotheses are "hunches" and not scientific (every scientific theory is by definition based upon hypotheses, not all of which are usually confirmed by experiment at the outset
It's a question of degree, I think. A hypothesis (eg the anthropic principle) which can not be tested should be treated differently from one which can. Obviously there is a spectrum from "scientific hypothesis" to "pure hokum" (after which is astrology). At some point "speculation" becomes "guessing" becomes "making it up as you go along". I over generalised this point but I do believe there is a distinction and lack of evidence is a bad sign, although not always fatal.
That my statements about how science is done (and always has been done since the scientific method was formalized) represents a "return to dark-age dogma",
Well, I still think that your statement that "physics is more or less complete... is a fairly necessary working assumption in science." is putting the case too strongly. Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants for particular experiments but in the wider scheme of things this is a dangerous assumption and it lies on the road to dogma.
that I refuse to admit the possibility that GR could be wrong in ways other than those attributable to quantum gravity
You do seem fixed on quantum gravity as being inevitable.
that scientists (or some subset thereof) are to be considered dogmatic "high priests", etc.
You're saying they (the subset, that is) are not?! Go to paleontology, there's piles of them! Physics has it's share too. You must have met some at least.
In other words, you made a lot of claims and insinuations that (a) show a naive view of how science is done and what science is, (b) are insulting to practicing scientists, and (c) have no basis in fact.
(a) I have a realistic view of how people work, scientists or not, and I know what science is about and why is is carried on the way it is. It may not be perfect (because of imperfect people) but it's pretty bloody good. (b)some practicing scientists could do with an insult or two. Deny it if you can. Most are "good guys" getting on with valuable, worth-while work. Some steal, lie, and cheat. My own field (computing) has suffered from a few fraudulent results in the name of getting grants. (c) Its just part of life. The alternative is to have no science at all.
It certainly is science. It is an untested scientific theory.
Nope, t'isn't. Unless you take "scientific theory" to be incredibly wide so that "unexplained cot deaths are caused by the existence of flying fish" is a scientific theory.
I stand by what I said; a theory with no experimental results just so much hot air. Can you give a counter example?
As to the rest: I think you'd be better of in some religion of some sort; you seem inordinately protective of the "high priests'" exclusive right to speculate on the nature of the universe. Indeed, all I really said was that I've never liked the existence of singularities in GR and that there is no evidence for event horizons (black holes) that separate them from some other type of super-dense object. You say there is, and I'm prepared to take your word for it for now (some references would be nice, if you have any handy). But still, hardly a hanging offence.
But you are still replacing one speculation (GR's treatment of space time at or within EHs) with another (that gravity must be quantum).
In fact there is some reason to think something is going on which might be described as "unknown physics": there have been results over the years which cause some unease. I'm thinking mainly of the slowdown in Voyagers I & II and the recent supernova data, although I dimly remember some strange results from a deep ice bore in Greenland many years ago. Alternative explanations have been put forward for these things but I'm not under the impression that it's all cut and dried.
bunch of insulting and naive claims about what scientists think,
I suggested that some people have an interest in keeping theories in which they are experts alive. This happens all the time in science, just as analogous things happen in any sphere of human interest. There is always an orthodox view which will defend itself irregardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation. Science is actually quite good at over-coming this human trait, but it's hardly immune.
Science is based on both hypotheses and experiments. Do you understand anything of the development of scientific theories? Sometimes experiment leads theory, sometimes theory leads experiment. Both are necessary.
My point was that both are necessary, a theory with a hypothesis and no experimental results is unfinished - it certainly isn't science.
My other point was that, since you admit there is at least one "missing piece" in GR, why can't you see that there is the possibility for others. The possibility does not have to mean that all the other evidence for GR is wrong, just that it might need refining.
Stop being condescending.
Sorry, I was blindly following suit.
it is unproductive to assume major revisions unless evidence forces you to.
I am suggesting that the presence of singularities in the current theory is that evidence. Oddly, you seem to agree.
If you want to continue this, email me but I need to get some work done today.
and get a booklet of my documents. That's user friendly. GUI's just don't cut it after the first three to six months of use. Once a user has got the hang of a machine the command line starts to out-strip the friendlyness of a GUI
People need to realise that a friendly-interface of a machine is like the wave/particle duality of matter: it's a GUI when measured with a newbie, and its a command line when measured with an experienced user.
So all this GUI Vs CLI guff is pointless, a system with only one or the other is crippled. That's what Linux really has over Windross 2000(BC).
The issue is experience, not "geekness", by the way. I know of typists who have become experts on their systems and started writing (very) complex TeX macros with no background in programming or any of the geek-arts.
the reason for all this seems to be that people eventually "outgrow" the GUI metaphor. Once a person groks what the icons etc are a metaphor for, they no longer need it and they want to be able to deal with the "real" things (programs, files, pipes, filters) for themselves.
Hypothesis (pl?) are based on hunches, science is based on results of experiments. Until you have the results to back up a theory it's up there with "aliens cause 1% of all miscarrages in the US". There are no results to back up singularity theory; I am not aware of the ones you mentioned for event horizons.
In lieu of doing any work this morning here is a run down of my "hunch":
Super-dense objects do exist.
GR is an astoundingly good piece of work. Probably the single best in physics, althoug QED runs a close second.
GR does not adequately handle the physics of super dense objects, as you have implied several times. These are so rare that it makes no difference for most applications of GR, just as the rarity of high speed objects made no odds to Newton's laws of motion for most applications.
A singularity is so outlandish that I, given the choice of accepting something which is totally atypical with the rest of the physical universe and assuming that it's just a sign that some other, unknown, aspect of the problem needs to be taken into account, generally choose the latter.
If there is something else to be taken into account (eg, quantum gravity) then the implication is that there is a point where that will produce a deviation from GR. Just as, for example, Mercury showed up the "flaw" in Newton's mechanics.
That point must be in regions of space under conditions very far removed from those we occupy and normally study.
The implications of this include the fact that we don't know where the divergence will be and that it might be before even the even horizon forms around a super-dense object. We just don't know.
Well, that's how I feel about it. I know there is a lot of grant money (and book money) based on assuming there is nothing more to be learnt about these objects, but I personally think that's a very odd thing to assume.
Why are you so sure that GR is wrong (because it's not a quantum theory) but that we can still extrapolate from it into regions of uniquely extreme characteristics?
As for the belief that physics is more or less complete -- no one knows that. However, it's a fairly necessary working assumption in science. If you assume that everything you know is wrong just around the corner where you haven't done an experiment yet, then you're left with nothing.
No, no, no, no.
Is is a necessary working assumption in science that what you know MIGHT be wrong. That's why we keep testing old theories. You are suggesting a return to dark-age dogma.
Science is the application of the old Sherlock Holmes quote "once you have elimiated anything which is impossible, whatever you are left with...is the answer" with the modification that we don't actually start with a full list of the possibilities. Science is more about finding out what is false than about finding out what is true - we almost never know that.
Understanding that does not "leave you with nothing", it leaves you with an open mind which is ready to overturn superstition, false claims and ignorance.
I'm not confusing black holes and singularities, although I admit to some sloppy language which gives that impression. However, as I get older and the evidence still fails to appear I am getting cynical about even the event horizon.
But the mistake many laymen make is to assume that any result they don't like -- say, one they think is "bizarre" -- is an error in the theory.
The mistake many mathematicians make is that any bizarre result is a breakthough!
Just because you think they're weird doesn't mean that there's a problem with the theory.
But there is something wrong with the theory: it has no evidence in its favor.
Black holes are indeed consistent with much astrophysical evidence, but so what? The argument here is not whether there exists very massive objects which could produce that evidence, it is about the nature of those objects (ie do they contain a singularity, do they have event horizons etc.).
The bottom line is that nothing else in nature has ever exhibited infinite characteristics (as a singularity does) so I want a lot of evidence that this is a real thing and not a naive extrapolation.
Indeed, the foundation of singularity theory is very poor and comes down to "after nuclear forces we don't know of anything which can stop the collapse. Duh, so I guess it collapses to infinity" is rather fatuous. Has no one ever considered the possibility that we might not know exactly what happens under such conditions?
I also wonder at the insistence that gravity must be quantum. Why must it be? Have you, or anyone else ever found any evidence that it is? I think it will be, but I wouldn't be too put out to find that it's not.
All this stuff is deeply unscientific, being based on assuptions and hunches and the belief that our physics is (more or less) complete even when dealing with conditions we can't even simulate accurately.
When maths predicts infinity its always time to re-examine your formulae.
Einstein's attitude to this seems to have been that when we reach a certain point in GR the system goes beyond the maths he was using.
The mistake many people who came after him have made is to assume that the "bizzare" results (eg black holes) reflect reality rather than a break down in the treatment. I personally doubt that Hawkings (who's rep is based on black hole theory) has ever contributed anything to science other than some popularity. Popular and wrong is still wrong.
It's a bit like assuming that FFFFFFFF + 1 really does equal 0. Until you get a 64bit machine and then you wonder why "reality" has changed.
I think it is the job of Microsoft to pursue their copyright in this case,
They don't have copyright in this case.
GO READ THE DMCA. GO READ THE EULA. THEN DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT AND WRONG HERE.
The DMCA and the EULA are irrelevent to this debate since M$ don't have copyright on this product. The main issue is can M$ claim copyright on a product called Kerberos. Well, they can't any more than I can change the last chapter of "Gone with the Wind" and then claim copyright protection.
If they'd called it "Cerberos" and advertised it as "based on Kerberos" they might have been on firmer ground (typically immoral but firmer). But they didn't - they claim the product is Kerberos and they just don't have copyright on that. End of story, take it to court and serve it up for tea.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all part of VC culture - they don't actually know why some companies they invest in fail and why some succeed so they are absolute suckers for a load of buzzwords wrapped up as a good business model. It is amazing how fasion conscious they are.
TWW
TWW
TWW
You are receiving a biased viewpoint on every topic. On /. it's fairly obvious what the bias is, it's places where you're not aware of the bias (eg your own head) that are dangerous.
Life's just like that, I'm afraid.
TWW
No, no. Candlemaker's guild cries `Reverse Engineering must be outlawed to allow for innovation in the candle industry'. And hires a buch of lawyers to threaten Universities where students have been heard discussing the light bulb.
TWW
Yes. That's what they paid their politicians to design and pass, and that's what they got.
In fact, the main hope of it being repealed is that it might start hurting other rich corporations, who might then pay their politicians to scrap the act.
TWW
I know its a troll but, still...
Reverse engineering deprives manufacturers of revenue for innovation.
Presumably by creating a market for their hardware. They must be gutted, what with all those extra sales reducing revenue.
For example, Gnome and Kde desktops ripoffs of the Windows interface.
Or are they ripoffs of the Mac that MS copied?
Or maybe they're ripoffs of the Xerox machines that Apple copied, that MS copied.
Or maybe they're ripoffs of the 14 other computer systems that Xerox say influenced them, that Apple copied, that MS copied (badly).
Or maybe in the real world this is how progress is made: not by preventing others from improving your ideas by sitting on them until they rot.
I assume that you are irritated daily by the sight of petrol-driven cars which are just ripoffs of the proper steam-driven devices of your youth.
Manufacters have a right to protect their intellectual property rights with features which thwart attempts to reverse engineer or to copy without authorization.
Never confuse a bad law with a right.
TWW
Well, that's how the "sales clerks" in Dixon's talk. They only get an hours training tocover all the products in the shop, and generally this training seems to consist of learning ways of saying that each item is fantastic, shit hot, cutting-edge, great value for money, etc. etc.
TWW
I'd say that was a glitch in the user.
TWW
Or, better, use some of the funding to move to a country which doesn't recognise these stupid, unethical, "patents" and copyrights and write and release the program from there.
TWW
Woman: What's the quality on your TV like?
Clerk: Pretty poor.
Woman: What's the quality on your monitor like?
Clerk: Shit hot. OH! I get it.
Woman: Just sit closer to the monitor and pretent it's 31".
TWW
In addition, their business plan stunk like 6-day old fish.
The only thing this proves is that stupid ideas done badly by stupid people are not a good investment.
TWW
So when they stop working for society, it's time to get rid of them? Is there any other solution?
TWW
I don't know of any specific gravitational physicist who will not admit that GR could be wrong.
I'm not talking about GR being wrong, the issue is applicability. I'd be astounded if GR was to be proved just plain old wrong. Not universally applicable, I could cope with.
I don't think singularities are a problem because they're "bizarre". There are plenty of bizarre things that are true. I think they're a problem because they are a literal breakdown in the theory -- physics fails to make predictions.
Er, wasn't that my original point - that they are a literal breakdown in the theory rather than being a reliable prediction of the theory? I'm sorry I ever mentioned my musings on the event horizons.
I would be interested to see if you can produce the name (and relevant quotation) of a physicist -- a contemporary would be the most interesting
Well, I don't actually know your name. Joke.
We have libel laws in this country and I'm logged on but the specific example I had in mind when I wrote that is one of the people you mentioned, was a big fan of the steady state, and had a run-in with Hawkings at the Royal Society in the days when Hawkings could still walk and speak unaided. I assume that's enough for you.
Not really comtemporary any more, I admit, but that's who I was thinking of.
Losing one's temper in a debate is a sure sign of the "high priest" mentality, regardless of how one is treated by colleagues .
This has been an interesting display of why newsgroups are better than /. for debates; I'm sick of typing into this little box.
Hope you can reply one last time, but I don't think there's much else to say on this topic, especially as we seem to agree on all the important points of the physics and disagree on most of the human issues. Perhaps I've just met too many bent scientists for my own good. Or perhaps you haven't met enough.
TWW
It is now, when I gave up on Windows the only way to do booklets was to download the unix utils and compile them under Windoze.
By the time M$ heard of these (decades old) programs, I'd given up on them and their crappy OS (which still can't read postscript, FFS!).
Besides, the point was that the CLI allows more complex manipulations than a GUI. Obviously, one response is to just wait until a specialised program is released that does what you need.
I mean, I would hate to think you were too stupid have have spoekn without looking.
Speokn like a true MS user.
TWW
Not true: there were observational results which Einstein was trying to encompass, in this case the results came before the theory.
I never said a single thing about anyone's exclusive right or lack thereof to speculate on the nature of the universe.
Your dismissive attitude to "laymen" says otherwise.
Actually you said a lot more, including the insistence that scientists refuse to consider the possibility that GR may be modified at event-horizon level curvatures, or really that they are unwilling to consider alternatives to GR.
I didn't say that-I may have suggested that some do and that you in particular had a problem but I never generalised to the degree you suggest.
At least this theory is motivated by an enormous body of evidence in the quantum nature of matter.
It is indeed, which is why I think it's true. But, as you said, evidence for the quantum nature of gravity is still out of reach. It is mearly a thought (perhaps its a scientific theory) that the reason it's been so hard to prove is that it's not true. Perhaps. But doubtful. Remain calm.
"scientists are so sure they're right about event horizons, they never consider the possibility they're wrong".
Don't put things in quotes unless they're quotes. I never said this. I said something similar in reference to some scientists.
Pioneer (not Voyager)
Yes, I think I was confusing an article about Voyager's range data being used to put a limit on the cosmological constant.
I suggested that some people have an interest in keeping theories in which they are experts alive.
Actually you didn't, though it is true.
What did you think I meant when I said "I know there is a lot of grant money (and book money) based on assuming there is nothing more to be learnt about these objects,"?
an interest in keeping's one's theory alive doesn't translate into an orthodoxy that refuses to consider evidence.
That's why physical sciences are better than most human fields in getting over dogma. Maths is even better.
What you did suggest was that it is a mistake to consider results to reflect reality merely because they seem "bizarre"
I was referring to purely theoretical results, not experimental results, although they can lead into trouble too. The danger here is a human one: bizarre results = publicity = grant possibilities and or status (if right). Ask Fleischman and Pons (at least one of whom got a well paid job in Japan to follow up on their data).
that many "mathematicians" think that bizarre results (presumably event horizons) are a "breakthrough" (I think this is funny,
I was being glib, so it was supposed to be a bit funny, but there are cases when it happens (the magical neural net for the travelling salesman problem, for example) but actually I meant singularities.
that physicists accept singularities because duh, they can't think of what else might happen in a collapse,
It's still true - simple extrapolation that leads to a bizarre (there's that word again) result should be treated with a lot of caution. Extrapolation should always be treated with caution. I seem to remeber Mark Twain commenting on the fact that, given the rate at which the Mississippi delta move upstream each year that 2000 years ago it must have stuck 300miles into space.
that making speculative hypotheses is "deeply unscientific" (when in fact it's what theorists have been doing all the way back to Galileo, Newton, Kepler, etc.), that hypotheses are "hunches" and not scientific (every scientific theory is by definition based upon hypotheses, not all of which are usually confirmed by experiment at the outset
It's a question of degree, I think. A hypothesis (eg the anthropic principle) which can not be tested should be treated differently from one which can. Obviously there is a spectrum from "scientific hypothesis" to "pure hokum" (after which is astrology). At some point "speculation" becomes "guessing" becomes "making it up as you go along". I over generalised this point but I do believe there is a distinction and lack of evidence is a bad sign, although not always fatal.
That my statements about how science is done (and always has been done since the scientific method was formalized) represents a "return to dark-age dogma",
Well, I still think that your statement that "physics is more or less complete ... is a fairly necessary working assumption in science." is putting the case too strongly. Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants for particular experiments but in the wider scheme of things this is a dangerous assumption and it lies on the road to dogma.
that I refuse to admit the possibility that GR could be wrong in ways other than those attributable to quantum gravity
You do seem fixed on quantum gravity as being inevitable.
that scientists (or some subset thereof) are to be considered dogmatic "high priests", etc.
You're saying they (the subset, that is) are not?! Go to paleontology, there's piles of them! Physics has it's share too. You must have met some at least.
In other words, you made a lot of claims and insinuations that (a) show a naive view of how science is done and what science is, (b) are insulting to practicing scientists, and (c) have no basis in fact.
(a) I have a realistic view of how people work, scientists or not, and I know what science is about and why is is carried on the way it is. It may not be perfect (because of imperfect people) but it's pretty bloody good. (b)some practicing scientists could do with an insult or two. Deny it if you can. Most are "good guys" getting on with valuable, worth-while work. Some steal, lie, and cheat. My own field (computing) has suffered from a few fraudulent results in the name of getting grants. (c) Its just part of life. The alternative is to have no science at all.
Time to feed the dog.
TWW
Nope, t'isn't. Unless you take "scientific theory" to be incredibly wide so that "unexplained cot deaths are caused by the existence of flying fish" is a scientific theory.
I stand by what I said; a theory with no experimental results just so much hot air. Can you give a counter example?
As to the rest: I think you'd be better of in some religion of some sort; you seem inordinately protective of the "high priests'" exclusive right to speculate on the nature of the universe. Indeed, all I really said was that I've never liked the existence of singularities in GR and that there is no evidence for event horizons (black holes) that separate them from some other type of super-dense object. You say there is, and I'm prepared to take your word for it for now (some references would be nice, if you have any handy). But still, hardly a hanging offence.
But you are still replacing one speculation (GR's treatment of space time at or within EHs) with another (that gravity must be quantum).
In fact there is some reason to think something is going on which might be described as "unknown physics": there have been results over the years which cause some unease. I'm thinking mainly of the slowdown in Voyagers I & II and the recent supernova data, although I dimly remember some strange results from a deep ice bore in Greenland many years ago. Alternative explanations have been put forward for these things but I'm not under the impression that it's all cut and dried.
bunch of insulting and naive claims about what scientists think,
I suggested that some people have an interest in keeping theories in which they are experts alive. This happens all the time in science, just as analogous things happen in any sphere of human interest. There is always an orthodox view which will defend itself irregardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation. Science is actually quite good at over-coming this human trait, but it's hardly immune.
TWW
My point was that both are necessary, a theory with a hypothesis and no experimental results is unfinished - it certainly isn't science.
My other point was that, since you admit there is at least one "missing piece" in GR, why can't you see that there is the possibility for others. The possibility does not have to mean that all the other evidence for GR is wrong, just that it might need refining.
Stop being condescending.
Sorry, I was blindly following suit.
it is unproductive to assume major revisions unless evidence forces you to.
I am suggesting that the presence of singularities in the current theory is that evidence. Oddly, you seem to agree.
If you want to continue this, email me but I need to get some work done today.
TWW
dvips -o doc.ps doc|psbook doc.ps|psnup -2|psselect -o|lpr
(turn paper around)
dvips -o doc.ps doc|psbook doc.ps|psnup -2|psselect -e|lpr
and get a booklet of my documents. That's user friendly. GUI's just don't cut it after the first three to six months of use. Once a user has got the hang of a machine the command line starts to out-strip the friendlyness of a GUI
People need to realise that a friendly-interface of a machine is like the wave/particle duality of matter: it's a GUI when measured with a newbie, and its a command line when measured with an experienced user.
So all this GUI Vs CLI guff is pointless, a system with only one or the other is crippled. That's what Linux really has over Windross 2000(BC).
The issue is experience, not "geekness", by the way. I know of typists who have become experts on their systems and started writing (very) complex TeX macros with no background in programming or any of the geek-arts.
the reason for all this seems to be that people eventually "outgrow" the GUI metaphor. Once a person groks what the icons etc are a metaphor for, they no longer need it and they want to be able to deal with the "real" things (programs, files, pipes, filters) for themselves.
TWW
Hypothesis (pl?) are based on hunches, science is based on results of experiments. Until you have the results to back up a theory it's up there with "aliens cause 1% of all miscarrages in the US". There are no results to back up singularity theory; I am not aware of the ones you mentioned for event horizons.
In lieu of doing any work this morning here is a run down of my "hunch":
Well, that's how I feel about it. I know there is a lot of grant money (and book money) based on assuming there is nothing more to be learnt about these objects, but I personally think that's a very odd thing to assume.
Why are you so sure that GR is wrong (because it's not a quantum theory) but that we can still extrapolate from it into regions of uniquely extreme characteristics?
As for the belief that physics is more or less complete -- no one knows that. However, it's a fairly necessary working assumption in science. If you assume that everything you know is wrong just around the corner where you haven't done an experiment yet, then you're left with nothing.
No, no, no, no.
Is is a necessary working assumption in science that what you know MIGHT be wrong. That's why we keep testing old theories. You are suggesting a return to dark-age dogma.
Science is the application of the old Sherlock Holmes quote "once you have elimiated anything which is impossible, whatever you are left with...is the answer" with the modification that we don't actually start with a full list of the possibilities. Science is more about finding out what is false than about finding out what is true - we almost never know that.
Understanding that does not "leave you with nothing", it leaves you with an open mind which is ready to overturn superstition, false claims and ignorance.
TWW
But the mistake many laymen make is to assume that any result they don't like -- say, one they think is "bizarre" -- is an error in the theory.
The mistake many mathematicians make is that any bizarre result is a breakthough!
Just because you think they're weird doesn't mean that there's a problem with the theory.
But there is something wrong with the theory: it has no evidence in its favor.
Black holes are indeed consistent with much astrophysical evidence, but so what? The argument here is not whether there exists very massive objects which could produce that evidence, it is about the nature of those objects (ie do they contain a singularity, do they have event horizons etc.).
The bottom line is that nothing else in nature has ever exhibited infinite characteristics (as a singularity does) so I want a lot of evidence that this is a real thing and not a naive extrapolation.
Indeed, the foundation of singularity theory is very poor and comes down to "after nuclear forces we don't know of anything which can stop the collapse. Duh, so I guess it collapses to infinity" is rather fatuous. Has no one ever considered the possibility that we might not know exactly what happens under such conditions?
I also wonder at the insistence that gravity must be quantum. Why must it be? Have you, or anyone else ever found any evidence that it is? I think it will be, but I wouldn't be too put out to find that it's not.
All this stuff is deeply unscientific, being based on assuptions and hunches and the belief that our physics is (more or less) complete even when dealing with conditions we can't even simulate accurately.
TWW
Einstein lived to see Chandrasekhar's work and others which covered singularities.
And Hawking showed that black holes must produce visible radiation,
If they exist.
Sorry to be terse but I'm at work.
TWW
Einstein's attitude to this seems to have been that when we reach a certain point in GR the system goes beyond the maths he was using.
The mistake many people who came after him have made is to assume that the "bizzare" results (eg black holes) reflect reality rather than a break down in the treatment. I personally doubt that Hawkings (who's rep is based on black hole theory) has ever contributed anything to science other than some popularity. Popular and wrong is still wrong.
It's a bit like assuming that FFFFFFFF + 1 really does equal 0. Until you get a 64bit machine and then you wonder why "reality" has changed.
TWW
They don't have copyright in this case.
GO READ THE DMCA. GO READ THE EULA. THEN DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT AND WRONG HERE.
The DMCA and the EULA are irrelevent to this debate since M$ don't have copyright on this product. The main issue is can M$ claim copyright on a product called Kerberos. Well, they can't any more than I can change the last chapter of "Gone with the Wind" and then claim copyright protection.
If they'd called it "Cerberos" and advertised it as "based on Kerberos" they might have been on firmer ground (typically immoral but firmer). But they didn't - they claim the product is Kerberos and they just don't have copyright on that. End of story, take it to court and serve it up for tea.
TWW
They do, it's not common though. I suspect the time difference has more to do with it than any fear of competition.
TWW