1) One has to wonder if the excitement generated by Deep Impact is just going to spawn a whole series of experiments involving slamming large impactors onto heavenly bodies... if only for the publicity of smashing a heavenly body.
2) One has to wonder if people will, like in Deep Impact, ask if the scientists are going to crash the moon into the Earth... because they don't understand what they are doing, and that it is unsafe.
It was illegal before Bush. People have been pushing this kind of thing for a long time, and have been doing it outside of the country for a long time.
It's easy to blame everything on Bush... but really stupid too. By pinning everything on Bush, you ignore those really responsible.
Don't like the war in Iraq? Want to blame Bush? Did you forget that it requires an act of Congress to declare war, or do you just prefer to let the legislative branch delude you so they can get re-elected?
I could claim no more value for my commentary than a grain or two of salt. If you would assign it an entire bucket, then you have far more confidence in my rather arm-chairish analysis than I.
Since you are a bit more into this than I. I have a question. I heard that people with more education become less creative... a symptom of becoming more indoctrinated into whatever line of thought they are pursuing. So, supposedly, once I complete my PhD, I'll be willing to humor fewer "crazy ideas" and, as such, will be less creative. I, however, don't really find this to be the case. I have worked with highly educated scientists, and some of their ideas have been quite formative of entire fields, influential, and, dare I say, creative.
As someone who really studies this stuff, what do you make of such statements? Have you heard of this before?
Ahh. I was unaware of this. I just see the statement saying "Council of Graduate Schools," that seems to be kind of boilerplate on these letters, and thought that it meant all graduate programs.
I think that you'll have plenty of time to think about it. I don't know about your particular specialization, but most graduate schools require replies by April 15 from all of the people they offered admission to.
I'm in the middle of figuring out which school I'll be attending in the Fall, and had all of my applications in by Jan 1.
I disagree with that comment, though I may not choose advice from Slashdot as being a very good source for most things. Quite often, the advice doled out here is just wrong. Everyone wants to comment, even non-experts. I try to avoid it when people are geniunely looking for an answer, but indulge a bit when it's more harmless.
I am not a psychologist, so, take what I say with a grain of salt.
I think that intelligence is mostly nurture, beyond some minimal level of assurance that the party does not have some disorder that would prevent proper development. I don't think that that goes against evolution at all. Evolution is not an intelligent process, those who think that this is an argument against evolution are the sort who just drop evolution in as a "scientific" replacement for God. IE, evolution does what God would do, but it sounds smarter if they say evolution, rather than, evolution is entirely different from Intelligent Design, which it is.
I also think that the American school system promotes all sorts of incorrect attitudes toward intellectual development. IE, doing well in school is probably not indicative of intelligence. Doing well in school means that you developed at about the rate that the system indicates that you should. It is indicative of certain social factors of your personality that help you to curry favor with your educators and the "smart" classmates. You probably also learn well by rote and don't mind boring repetitive tasks.
None of these things have anything to do with intelligence, plenty of highly intelligent people fail to do well under this system. Nurture is something that feeds your intellect, not something that strokes your ego.
So, I agree, and would in fact reinforce your argument to the degree that I am capable.
they are also planning to launch a new wave of 'information warfare'
This is an old DoD buzzword that people say in order to sound cool. It funds armies of Tiger Teams, and that's about the stretch of it. It's about as futuristic as that, putting it roughly in the paleolithic. Even so, if you sit at a board meeting in a defense contractor, you can sound really smart and macho at the same time by saying information warfare, you 1337 hax0r d00d.
Or course, the biggest epidemiological study of all is the one we are all participating in whenever we use our cell phone. The results from that study won't be available for a while.
Not really. The metering is lousy. The control group is corrupted. Heck, the technology is changing, so the signals are different. As a study, the world at large makes a lousy experiment for this.
I think that there was a book or a website on this. I heard it listening to Coast to Coast AM. http://www.ctoc.com/ Incidentally, if you like listening to people talk about conspiracy theories and such, this is probably the best listening material around. Ironically, listeners complain that the topics that one of the hosts covers are too mainstream.
The best episodes are ones where they have people with a lot of credibility come on (historians, professors) and discuss some of the listeners more, uhmm, interesting theories, with them.
I'd suggest that it's safest for him if he move out of the country, but, realistically, the Freemasons are scattered throughout the world, and they are likely to catch him wherever he goes. Their tie to the Illuminati is obvious, and it is also obvious that the Illuminati is behind all of this.
I think that he needs to run to the mountains of Montana, move into a cave, and then build a faraday cage IN that cave to block the signals from the RFID chip implanted in his brain. Just to be safe, he should wear a tinfoil hat on the drive.
If he chooses to go through Canada, instead of into Montana (better Maple syrup, honestly), then he should refuse to remove the hat at the border, and scream "They're going to get me! Save me! They've caught up with me!!"
They come from inside the Earth, which has a smaller interior spheroid surface, with its own source of light and everything. Incredible that people would believe it, but they really do.
Slashdot Mirror
1) One has to wonder if the excitement generated by Deep Impact is just going to spawn a whole series of experiments involving slamming large impactors onto heavenly bodies... if only for the publicity of smashing a heavenly body.
2) One has to wonder if people will, like in Deep Impact, ask if the scientists are going to crash the moon into the Earth... because they don't understand what they are doing, and that it is unsafe.
Think about what you do at a bar... I think that that's what he was getting at.
Holy William F. Gibson novel Batman!
There is no point in arguing this. Nothing I say will influence your opinion, and nothing you say will influence mine.
They authorized military action. I suppose that they didn't expect the President to use it when he asked for it.
You have a gross misconception of how powerful the President is by relation to the legislature.
You're right, that's what I was referring to, and I should have put it differently. This is a much different beast.
You can believe that Dubya did this all on his own if you like.
It was illegal before Bush. People have been pushing this kind of thing for a long time, and have been doing it outside of the country for a long time.
It's easy to blame everything on Bush... but really stupid too. By pinning everything on Bush, you ignore those really responsible.
Don't like the war in Iraq? Want to blame Bush? Did you forget that it requires an act of Congress to declare war, or do you just prefer to let the legislative branch delude you so they can get re-elected?
Yep. Going to Slashdot for business advice isn't terribly bright.
I for one, believe that they should give everything away as open source, and that making money is evil. Oh, and something about Bush... grrrr.
They'll have an even harder time trying to find a computer with a USB port...
I could claim no more value for my commentary than a grain or two of salt. If you would assign it an entire bucket, then you have far more confidence in my rather arm-chairish analysis than I.
Since you are a bit more into this than I. I have a question. I heard that people with more education become less creative... a symptom of becoming more indoctrinated into whatever line of thought they are pursuing. So, supposedly, once I complete my PhD, I'll be willing to humor fewer "crazy ideas" and, as such, will be less creative. I, however, don't really find this to be the case. I have worked with highly educated scientists, and some of their ideas have been quite formative of entire fields, influential, and, dare I say, creative.
As someone who really studies this stuff, what do you make of such statements? Have you heard of this before?
Ahh. I was unaware of this. I just see the statement saying "Council of Graduate Schools," that seems to be kind of boilerplate on these letters, and thought that it meant all graduate programs.
CMU has a #1 ranked CS Program, but it's also damn near impossible to get into.
I think that you'll have plenty of time to think about it. I don't know about your particular specialization, but most graduate schools require replies by April 15 from all of the people they offered admission to.
I'm in the middle of figuring out which school I'll be attending in the Fall, and had all of my applications in by Jan 1.
I disagree with that comment, though I may not choose advice from Slashdot as being a very good source for most things. Quite often, the advice doled out here is just wrong. Everyone wants to comment, even non-experts. I try to avoid it when people are geniunely looking for an answer, but indulge a bit when it's more harmless.
I am not a psychologist, so, take what I say with a grain of salt.
I think that intelligence is mostly nurture, beyond some minimal level of assurance that the party does not have some disorder that would prevent proper development. I don't think that that goes against evolution at all. Evolution is not an intelligent process, those who think that this is an argument against evolution are the sort who just drop evolution in as a "scientific" replacement for God. IE, evolution does what God would do, but it sounds smarter if they say evolution, rather than, evolution is entirely different from Intelligent Design, which it is.
I also think that the American school system promotes all sorts of incorrect attitudes toward intellectual development. IE, doing well in school is probably not indicative of intelligence. Doing well in school means that you developed at about the rate that the system indicates that you should. It is indicative of certain social factors of your personality that help you to curry favor with your educators and the "smart" classmates. You probably also learn well by rote and don't mind boring repetitive tasks.
None of these things have anything to do with intelligence, plenty of highly intelligent people fail to do well under this system. Nurture is something that feeds your intellect, not something that strokes your ego.
So, I agree, and would in fact reinforce your argument to the degree that I am capable.
they are also planning to launch a new wave of 'information warfare'
This is an old DoD buzzword that people say in order to sound cool. It funds armies of Tiger Teams, and that's about the stretch of it. It's about as futuristic as that, putting it roughly in the paleolithic. Even so, if you sit at a board meeting in a defense contractor, you can sound really smart and macho at the same time by saying information warfare, you 1337 hax0r d00d.
Your wife is having sex with your best friend.
Here's $100,000, suck it up you whiner.
Or course, the biggest epidemiological study of all is the one we are all participating in whenever we use our cell phone. The results from that study won't be available for a while.
Not really. The metering is lousy. The control group is corrupted. Heck, the technology is changing, so the signals are different. As a study, the world at large makes a lousy experiment for this.
Uhmm, duh, haven't you ever heard of the PLO?
I had pancakes for breakfast...
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
I think that there was a book or a website on this. I heard it listening to Coast to Coast AM. http://www.ctoc.com/ Incidentally, if you like listening to people talk about conspiracy theories and such, this is probably the best listening material around. Ironically, listeners complain that the topics that one of the hosts covers are too mainstream.
The best episodes are ones where they have people with a lot of credibility come on (historians, professors) and discuss some of the listeners more, uhmm, interesting theories, with them.
I'd suggest that it's safest for him if he move out of the country, but, realistically, the Freemasons are scattered throughout the world, and they are likely to catch him wherever he goes. Their tie to the Illuminati is obvious, and it is also obvious that the Illuminati is behind all of this.
I think that he needs to run to the mountains of Montana, move into a cave, and then build a faraday cage IN that cave to block the signals from the RFID chip implanted in his brain. Just to be safe, he should wear a tinfoil hat on the drive.
If he chooses to go through Canada, instead of into Montana (better Maple syrup, honestly), then he should refuse to remove the hat at the border, and scream "They're going to get me! Save me! They've caught up with me!!"
Just watch out for black helicopters outside your residence, after you made that comment you terrorist!
Hahahha! I love hearing stories about "reptoids!"
They come from inside the Earth, which has a smaller interior spheroid surface, with its own source of light and everything. Incredible that people would believe it, but they really do.