They (theater owners) could always recoup the cost by showing an additional 30 or 40 minutes of commercials before (and maybe even during) the feature. The audience has pretty much already been pared down to people who won't object to this, anyway...
Why, after all, should he help support the very civilization - with its legal institutions, stable economy, educational system, communication and transport infrastructures, etc. etc., that made this wonderful windfall possible for him? Surely he could have turned the same trick as a loner in the wilderness, with only stone knives and bearskins.
And I'm sure he'll continue to avail himself of all of the legal and institutional protections he requires to protect and maintain his new wealth, whether or not he feels it his duty to pay for them.
Actually, if I were a teacher, I think I'd be OK with this. If you friend a few of your students, then you'd have to friend all of them in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, and if other teachers were doing it there would be pressure to do it yourself as well. So, instead of having to say, "No, you can't be my friend," you can simply cite the law.
This thread is about when white people discovered R&R. We surely picked it up from somewhere, but all of that is lost in the foggy shroud of history...
Is the US the only country that virtually requires that you pay (and divulge your financial information to) a private third party in order to fulfill your tax obligations? I remember reading a while back that Intuit and other companies actually retain lobbyists in DC just to keep it this way, and to keep the tax code as complicated as possible. Can't vouch for the truth of that, though.
If you ever need an example of the Public Good being sacrificed wholesale for a corporate special interest, you won't do much better than this.
This smelled funny to me as well. Aside from whether they really attempted to replicate that many studies - which would be a very major undertaking - they are saying that "the studies can't be replicated" rather than "we couldn't replicate the studies." On top of that, rather than reporting these failures as they occurred and subjecting them to peer review, they come out after they are finished with precious few details, so that their own replications cannot be replicated. Good Grief.
For me, that casts more doubt on their own lab than on those they are replicating. If you go a step further and question their motivation and whether this was the result they were seeking all along, the doubt only deepens.
Monopoly capitalism is still capitalism. Competition and free markets are part of the ideological face that it presents to the public, but no capitalist worth his/her salt wants to be out there competing to sell commodity goods for any longer than they have to.
Going beyond that, just what value is there to making your friends envious of you? Will they like you better? The truth is that you'll be hosting your envious friends all of the time and they'll never reciprocate, because they'll think you'll look down on them for their general lack of materialist douchebaggery.
I guess it's one straw man against the other here. Either all of the wacky conspiracy theories are credible - despite their incompatibilities - or the Official Version of events is gospel truth (at least for the 30 or 40 years that the truth still matters).
But if you're in power and need to bend recent history for some purpose - like starting a war - your best move is to get as many nut-job theories into circulation as you can. That way the real truth gets lost in the circus and yours is the only one left standing.
What you describe is something like x-dot = c, which is linear growth. Something like x-dot= c x is exponential. (if you are familiar with the symbols from calculus).
The original context was my (pedantic?) objection to the use of the idiom "grow exponentially" to imply a dramatic acceleration in the growth of something. So pretty clearly, we're already in the realm of your x-dot = cx, or d(e^cx)/dx, since that defines exponential growth. The value c is often referred to as a "rate constant" (e.g., in chemical kinetics), and of course it doesn't change even though the slope of the curve does, in proportion to x.
The counter-argument that made me a stupid fuck was, in your notation: x-dot = e^x, asserting that a growth rate itself must increase exponentially in order to generate an exponential growth curve. His (I'm guessing gender because of the insult, not the math) differentiation was correct, but on the wrong function.
True, but the original point was that exponential growth does not imply a growth rate that itself is increasing exponentially, as many people seem to assume. So your example involving arithmetic growth clearly doesn't apply, since it generates linear and not exponential growth. I don't see any ambiguity at all.
No, the actual context was the use of the phrase "grow exponentially" to mean greatly accelerated growth, (or a quantum leap) of a technology due to a dramatic breakthrough. Frankly, it seems a little silly now that it has become this much of an irritation.
Anyway, what made me a "stupid fuck" was to say that growth at a constant proportional rate was exponential growth. The reasoning given was that the derivative of e^x is simply e^x, and hence the growth rate itself is growing exponentially. That derivative is correct, but a misapplication, because the expression for proportionally constant growth is not e^x but actually e^(xt), and the time derivative e^xt of this is simply x, the rate constant. I don't know where in physics a growth rate would be interpreted otherwise.
Anyway, I got my feathers in a ruffle not because someone was wrong on the internet, but because of the insults and down-voting that accompanied it. I'd wager that anyone else would feel the same.
Or, more properly, don't do research that inconveniences industries (like carbon-based fuels) that patronize the Republicans. A few well-funded public relations firms will have more weight than any amount of science you can muster.
There's nothing about climate science that is inherently conservative or liberal, and no reason that conservatives should be upset about it except that it is one of several threads that may motivate us to lessen our reliance on the oil companies. That's it. And the attacks on climate science by conservatives didn't begin with a bona fide scientific controversy, but rather with a bunch of PR firms that were hired by Exxon-Mobil (among others) to sow doubt among conservative commentators and the public. That is what passes for scientific credibility among conservatives these days.
The other day - in a discussion of quantum computing, of all things - I was downvoted into oblivion and called a "stupid fuck" twice for pointing out that a quantity that grows at a constant rate follows an exponential growth curve. Now I don't think the people behind that were necessarily innumerate, because one of them managed to misapply some first-semester calculus in his argument. What does often happen is that people who learn some math in a rote way are unable to apply it to real-world problems, or even to interpret them correctly. Taking a math course or two - unless focused on creative problem-solving - isn't necessarily going to help much.
First of all, the derivative of e to the x ("exponential function") is e to the x. Yeah thats true the D is the same as the function itself. Welcome to 1st semester calculus, kids
Me again... This discussion is long dead, but I have to point out that the exponential growth curve is not e^x but rather a*e^(x*t), where a is the initial quantity, t represents time and x is the rate constant. Now differentiate that with repect to t, and you get the slope a*t, as you would expect from a constant x.
Hence, a population of 1000 that grows by 1% adds 10 times as many as a population of 100 that grows by the same rate. Constant growth rate, exponential growth. I don't see why this is so difficult, especially among people who came to a discussion on quantum computing.
I beg to disagree. In a randomized trial, you will never show anything other than correlation. That is what correlation is, statistically speaking. With a very well-designed trial that minimizes bias and sampling error, you may get a very high-quality correlation and justifiably conclude (with high confidence) that your independent variable was causative in some way. Remember, though, that randomization does not guarantee that potential confounding variables are controlled. It merely lessens their expected effects to an extent that depends on sample size.
But hey - Why all the disrespect for correlation, anyway? People who should know better say things like "correlation is not causation", as if empiricism itself were the enemy. The real issue is how good your data is, and that's why we fret so much over experimental design.
I'm talking about the growth rate (i.e., the 0.1), not the slope of the resulting exponential curve.
Here, try this: Plot the curve of a quantity that grows by a fixed proportion from one point to the next. E.g., a population that grows by 10% per year. Is that curve linear over time? No, of course not: it's an exponential, and the exponent is the growth rate (multiplied by t), which is constant. It's like magic.
This is pretty elementary stuff, but before you start calling people a "stupid fuck", maybe you should talk to someone who is more mathematically literate than yourself. You do show good sense in posting anonymously, though; I'll give you that.
so their results are purely correlation, and not causation
Results from fully randomized double-blind trials are no less "purely correlation", although they do attempt to put a lid on investigator bias and sampling error. To go much beyond that into "causation", you'd need to identify a mechanism for the observed effects.
Well, somebody's certainly is. Suppose that something grows continuously at a constant rate of 10% per year. That is exponential growth, because it fits the relation x = e^(0.1*n). Try it.
Oy... The rate is constant, meaning that the increase is in constant proportion to the value of the function at any given time. That's why calculations of continuous compound growth take exponential form, and it's a result of e^x being its own derivative, as you point out.
Of course neither the OP nor I were talking about the computational order ("Big-O") of a quantum algorithm, because no specific algorithm was under discussion. If such algorithms were typically exponential in N - i.e., O(e^N) - that wouldn't be very encouraging news, would it? The word "exponentially" was clearly used to mean a large, discontinuous increase - a quantum leap, if you will - and not the kind of smooth, fixed-rate growth that it implies in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
They (theater owners) could always recoup the cost by showing an additional 30 or 40 minutes of commercials before (and maybe even during) the feature. The audience has pretty much already been pared down to people who won't object to this, anyway...
Why, after all, should he help support the very civilization - with its legal institutions, stable economy, educational system, communication and transport infrastructures, etc. etc., that made this wonderful windfall possible for him? Surely he could have turned the same trick as a loner in the wilderness, with only stone knives and bearskins.
And I'm sure he'll continue to avail himself of all of the legal and institutional protections he requires to protect and maintain his new wealth, whether or not he feels it his duty to pay for them.
Actually, if I were a teacher, I think I'd be OK with this. If you friend a few of your students, then you'd have to friend all of them in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, and if other teachers were doing it there would be pressure to do it yourself as well. So, instead of having to say, "No, you can't be my friend," you can simply cite the law.
This thread is about when white people discovered R&R. We surely picked it up from somewhere, but all of that is lost in the foggy shroud of history...
Is the US the only country that virtually requires that you pay (and divulge your financial information to) a private third party in order to fulfill your tax obligations? I remember reading a while back that Intuit and other companies actually retain lobbyists in DC just to keep it this way, and to keep the tax code as complicated as possible. Can't vouch for the truth of that, though.
If you ever need an example of the Public Good being sacrificed wholesale for a corporate special interest, you won't do much better than this.
This smelled funny to me as well. Aside from whether they really attempted to replicate that many studies - which would be a very major undertaking - they are saying that "the studies can't be replicated" rather than "we couldn't replicate the studies." On top of that, rather than reporting these failures as they occurred and subjecting them to peer review, they come out after they are finished with precious few details, so that their own replications cannot be replicated. Good Grief.
For me, that casts more doubt on their own lab than on those they are replicating. If you go a step further and question their motivation and whether this was the result they were seeking all along, the doubt only deepens.
Monopoly capitalism is still capitalism. Competition and free markets are part of the ideological face that it presents to the public, but no capitalist worth his/her salt wants to be out there competing to sell commodity goods for any longer than they have to.
Going beyond that, just what value is there to making your friends envious of you? Will they like you better? The truth is that you'll be hosting your envious friends all of the time and they'll never reciprocate, because they'll think you'll look down on them for their general lack of materialist douchebaggery.
In some states you probably could have shot the guy with no legal repercussions...
Well, to be fair (and as someone else pointed out around here), they do call it "Office 365" and not "Office 366".
"It works the same in any country."
I guess it's one straw man against the other here. Either all of the wacky conspiracy theories are credible - despite their incompatibilities - or the Official Version of events is gospel truth (at least for the 30 or 40 years that the truth still matters).
But if you're in power and need to bend recent history for some purpose - like starting a war - your best move is to get as many nut-job theories into circulation as you can. That way the real truth gets lost in the circus and yours is the only one left standing.
a union that is putting a choke holds on the labor pool
Please, tell us more...
What you describe is something like x-dot = c, which is linear growth. Something like x-dot= c x is exponential. (if you are familiar with the symbols from calculus).
The original context was my (pedantic?) objection to the use of the idiom "grow exponentially" to imply a dramatic acceleration in the growth of something. So pretty clearly, we're already in the realm of your x-dot = cx, or d(e^cx)/dx, since that defines exponential growth. The value c is often referred to as a "rate constant" (e.g., in chemical kinetics), and of course it doesn't change even though the slope of the curve does, in proportion to x.
The counter-argument that made me a stupid fuck was, in your notation: x-dot = e^x, asserting that a growth rate itself must increase exponentially in order to generate an exponential growth curve. His (I'm guessing gender because of the insult, not the math) differentiation was correct, but on the wrong function.
Anyway, enough of this.
True, but the original point was that exponential growth does not imply a growth rate that itself is increasing exponentially, as many people seem to assume. So your example involving arithmetic growth clearly doesn't apply, since it generates linear and not exponential growth. I don't see any ambiguity at all.
No, the actual context was the use of the phrase "grow exponentially" to mean greatly accelerated growth, (or a quantum leap) of a technology due to a dramatic breakthrough. Frankly, it seems a little silly now that it has become this much of an irritation.
Anyway, what made me a "stupid fuck" was to say that growth at a constant proportional rate was exponential growth. The reasoning given was that the derivative of e^x is simply e^x, and hence the growth rate itself is growing exponentially. That derivative is correct, but a misapplication, because the expression for proportionally constant growth is not e^x but actually e^(xt), and the time derivative e^xt of this is simply x, the rate constant. I don't know where in physics a growth rate would be interpreted otherwise.
Anyway, I got my feathers in a ruffle not because someone was wrong on the internet, but because of the insults and down-voting that accompanied it. I'd wager that anyone else would feel the same.
Or, more properly, don't do research that inconveniences industries (like carbon-based fuels) that patronize the Republicans. A few well-funded public relations firms will have more weight than any amount of science you can muster.
There's nothing about climate science that is inherently conservative or liberal, and no reason that conservatives should be upset about it except that it is one of several threads that may motivate us to lessen our reliance on the oil companies. That's it. And the attacks on climate science by conservatives didn't begin with a bona fide scientific controversy, but rather with a bunch of PR firms that were hired by Exxon-Mobil (among others) to sow doubt among conservative commentators and the public. That is what passes for scientific credibility among conservatives these days.
The other day - in a discussion of quantum computing, of all things - I was downvoted into oblivion and called a "stupid fuck" twice for pointing out that a quantity that grows at a constant rate follows an exponential growth curve. Now I don't think the people behind that were necessarily innumerate, because one of them managed to misapply some first-semester calculus in his argument. What does often happen is that people who learn some math in a rote way are unable to apply it to real-world problems, or even to interpret them correctly. Taking a math course or two - unless focused on creative problem-solving - isn't necessarily going to help much.
Conventional firearms have been effective at silencing speakers for centuries. Do we really need this?
First of all, the derivative of e to the x ("exponential function") is e to the x. Yeah thats true the D is the same as the function itself. Welcome to 1st semester calculus, kids
Me again... This discussion is long dead, but I have to point out that the exponential growth curve is not e^x but rather a*e^(x*t), where a is the initial quantity, t represents time and x is the rate constant. Now differentiate that with repect to t, and you get the slope a*t, as you would expect from a constant x.
Hence, a population of 1000 that grows by 1% adds 10 times as many as a population of 100 that grows by the same rate. Constant growth rate, exponential growth. I don't see why this is so difficult, especially among people who came to a discussion on quantum computing.
I beg to disagree. In a randomized trial, you will never show anything other than correlation. That is what correlation is, statistically speaking. With a very well-designed trial that minimizes bias and sampling error, you may get a very high-quality correlation and justifiably conclude (with high confidence) that your independent variable was causative in some way. Remember, though, that randomization does not guarantee that potential confounding variables are controlled. It merely lessens their expected effects to an extent that depends on sample size.
But hey - Why all the disrespect for correlation, anyway? People who should know better say things like "correlation is not causation", as if empiricism itself were the enemy. The real issue is how good your data is, and that's why we fret so much over experimental design.
I'm talking about the growth rate (i.e., the 0.1), not the slope of the resulting exponential curve.
Here, try this: Plot the curve of a quantity that grows by a fixed proportion from one point to the next. E.g., a population that grows by 10% per year. Is that curve linear over time? No, of course not: it's an exponential, and the exponent is the growth rate (multiplied by t), which is constant. It's like magic.
This is pretty elementary stuff, but before you start calling people a "stupid fuck", maybe you should talk to someone who is more mathematically literate than yourself. You do show good sense in posting anonymously, though; I'll give you that.
so their results are purely correlation, and not causation
Results from fully randomized double-blind trials are no less "purely correlation", although they do attempt to put a lid on investigator bias and sampling error. To go much beyond that into "causation", you'd need to identify a mechanism for the observed effects.
Your Ignorance is showing.
Well, somebody's certainly is. Suppose that something grows continuously at a constant rate of 10% per year. That is exponential growth, because it fits the relation x = e^(0.1*n). Try it.
Oy... The rate is constant, meaning that the increase is in constant proportion to the value of the function at any given time. That's why calculations of continuous compound growth take exponential form, and it's a result of e^x being its own derivative, as you point out.
Of course neither the OP nor I were talking about the computational order ("Big-O") of a quantum algorithm, because no specific algorithm was under discussion. If such algorithms were typically exponential in N - i.e., O(e^N) - that wouldn't be very encouraging news, would it? The word "exponentially" was clearly used to mean a large, discontinuous increase - a quantum leap, if you will - and not the kind of smooth, fixed-rate growth that it implies in reality.
But, whatever... It's a peeve of mine.