Very, because your name is completely irrelevant. Imagine you want to know everything about penguins. You look at what they do all day, where they eat, where they hunt, which other penguins they hang out with, where they shit, whether they have eggs, who looks after the egg at what time, what kind of fish they're eating, what color their shit is, on and on and on. At that point, what extra information would a name give you? It would tell you absolutely nothing. You can assign the name yourself, just to ease the process of telling penguins apart. That the name didn't come from the penguins directly doesn't matter in the slightest.
Names are not how Big Data tracks you. They simply look at what connections are made from where to where at what time, and assign labels to the points where information flows from, and where information flows to. One of those points refers to you, and if they're any good, to your smart-phone, laptop, toaster, and all other internet-enabled devices you use as well.
I don't have it backwards. I'm pointing out the absurd implication of what the original poster said. Unless he wants to commit himself to the claim that what Newton did is not science (but then, why is what Einstein did science? I see no reason to assume that relativity won't be superseded by a more complete theory in the future), this is what would follow from it.
Yes, knowledge of culture is important, but the argument the dean was making is that specific knowledge of culture and beliefs is important to all MIT graduates, which I disagree with. Most knowledge can potentially become useful, but there is so much knowledge that no one person can ever obtain all of it. That's why, contrary to the oft-quoted Heinlein line, specialization is not just for insects, but rather a necessity of being human.
You're drawing an unwarranted conclusion there. Just because I think there is a wrong way to use "so" does not mean I think there is an objectively correct way to use it. It's like the Sorites' paradox. Just because ten grains of rice is not a heap and a thousand grains of rice is, does not mean there is a definite number of grains of rice above which it's definitely a heap and below which it definitely isn't. Similarly, there is no objectively correct use of the word "so" (which a prescriptivist would argue), but there are objectively wrong ways. For example, "I used the so to pump gas," "When so lighting struck so barn, so fire department was called." or "So so so so so, so so so so so so so!" are all incorrect uses of the word "so" when it is intended to mean what it is generally intended to mean.
If the rules of science were defined by reality, reality would have changed when Einstein proved Newton wrong. After all, reality defined Newton's laws first, but then defined them differently a couple hundred years later.
Additionally, some of the humanities do have rules. There are rules for what is considered to be a rational argument, and there are rules that determine what conclusions you can draw based on your data set. There are rules to history, there are rules to (analytic) philosophy (continental philosophy is another story), and there are rules to psychology. Your ignorance of them does not make them disappear, just like your ignorance of the way theory formation occurs in science doesn't make it not happen.
"science issues are always embedded in broader human realities, from deeply felt cultural traditions to building codes to political tensions. So our students also need an in-depth understanding of human complexities"
I wish they taught how the word "so" works in the humanities, then we wouldn't see such unwarranted conclusion-drawing. The fact that certain cultures have deeply felt traditions about the value of pi does not mean that a mathematician should be aware of them to be a competent mathematician, or even a competent human being. The fact that other cultures have deeply felt traditions concerning the transfer of blood does not mean that a biochemist needs to know about Jehovah's witnesses. The fact that there is a strong anti-science bent to political factions on both sides of the spectrum in the US is completely irrelevant to me thinking about the nature of consciousness.
Which of course does not disprove the wider point that there is value to the humanities. There is just more value to some of the humanities, and less value to others. I'm thinking specifically of the ones that make you not write incoherent ramblings and try to pass them off as persuasive arguments.
Ever since I first heard about the idea of grey goo, I've always wondered why no-one realises that grey goo already exists: they're called bacteria and viruses. They reproduce unchecked, can have catastrophic consequences for all other forms of life, and are largely carbon-based nano-machines.
It's the same here in the Netherlands as well. A sentence of "life in jail" automatically gets commuted to 30 years, and it's the absolute maximum you can get, no matter how many crimes you've committed. That's why I asked.
This has very little to do with the article, but it's something that's always confused my about American law. Why in god's name would you sentence someone to 400 years in prison unless you believe in Highlanders? Similarly, what is the point of consecutive life sentences? Prima facie it seems to be that if one life sentence gets overturned, there's still a couple more to make sure the person stays in prison, but that makes the whole act of overturning a life sentence in the first place a farce.
I always feel uncomfortable answering "on a scale of 1 to 10, how much does it hurt?" whenever I go to the doctor with complaints about pain. From what I've heard the most painful sensation possible is being shot in the kneecap, so that would be a 10, but having never been shot in the kneecap, how could I know how much that hurts? On the other end of the spectrum, what's a 1? Drinking carbonated soft drinks? Popping a zit? A bee-sting? In other words, how does the physician know what I take as my 1 and 10? If I can't do better than make a guess at the level of my own pain, how could the physician possibly get any useful information from that at all?
I imagine this is how the owlbear was conceived of. Though to be fair one of the advantages that pencil and paper offers over slashdot is an edit function.
Once there was a gnarled and crooked tree in a forest of stoat oaks. The oaks made fun of him because he was completely useless and served no purpose.
Now there stands a gnarled and crooked tree on a meadow where there once was a forest of stout oaks, free to all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen he could ever want, because being useless is immensely useful.
More like they'll pool their money, buy components for and build a dedicated bitcoin harvester, invest their gains in more equipment, and virtuously circle their way to enough bitcoins to buy free weed for everyone, including the staff.
You are fucking insane. You pay exorbitant prices for terrible service, especially compared to where I live (The Netherlands) and have lived (South Korea).
Slashdot Mirror
From a sociologist? Surely you jest.
Very, because your name is completely irrelevant. Imagine you want to know everything about penguins. You look at what they do all day, where they eat, where they hunt, which other penguins they hang out with, where they shit, whether they have eggs, who looks after the egg at what time, what kind of fish they're eating, what color their shit is, on and on and on. At that point, what extra information would a name give you? It would tell you absolutely nothing. You can assign the name yourself, just to ease the process of telling penguins apart. That the name didn't come from the penguins directly doesn't matter in the slightest.
Names are not how Big Data tracks you. They simply look at what connections are made from where to where at what time, and assign labels to the points where information flows from, and where information flows to. One of those points refers to you, and if they're any good, to your smart-phone, laptop, toaster, and all other internet-enabled devices you use as well.
I don't have it backwards. I'm pointing out the absurd implication of what the original poster said. Unless he wants to commit himself to the claim that what Newton did is not science (but then, why is what Einstein did science? I see no reason to assume that relativity won't be superseded by a more complete theory in the future), this is what would follow from it.
Yes, knowledge of culture is important, but the argument the dean was making is that specific knowledge of culture and beliefs is important to all MIT graduates, which I disagree with. Most knowledge can potentially become useful, but there is so much knowledge that no one person can ever obtain all of it. That's why, contrary to the oft-quoted Heinlein line, specialization is not just for insects, but rather a necessity of being human.
You're drawing an unwarranted conclusion there. Just because I think there is a wrong way to use "so" does not mean I think there is an objectively correct way to use it. It's like the Sorites' paradox. Just because ten grains of rice is not a heap and a thousand grains of rice is, does not mean there is a definite number of grains of rice above which it's definitely a heap and below which it definitely isn't. Similarly, there is no objectively correct use of the word "so" (which a prescriptivist would argue), but there are objectively wrong ways. For example, "I used the so to pump gas," "When so lighting struck so barn, so fire department was called." or "So so so so so, so so so so so so so!" are all incorrect uses of the word "so" when it is intended to mean what it is generally intended to mean.
If the rules of science were defined by reality, reality would have changed when Einstein proved Newton wrong. After all, reality defined Newton's laws first, but then defined them differently a couple hundred years later.
Additionally, some of the humanities do have rules. There are rules for what is considered to be a rational argument, and there are rules that determine what conclusions you can draw based on your data set. There are rules to history, there are rules to (analytic) philosophy (continental philosophy is another story), and there are rules to psychology. Your ignorance of them does not make them disappear, just like your ignorance of the way theory formation occurs in science doesn't make it not happen.
"science issues are always embedded in broader human realities, from deeply felt cultural traditions to building codes to political tensions. So our students also need an in-depth understanding of human complexities"
I wish they taught how the word "so" works in the humanities, then we wouldn't see such unwarranted conclusion-drawing. The fact that certain cultures have deeply felt traditions about the value of pi does not mean that a mathematician should be aware of them to be a competent mathematician, or even a competent human being. The fact that other cultures have deeply felt traditions concerning the transfer of blood does not mean that a biochemist needs to know about Jehovah's witnesses. The fact that there is a strong anti-science bent to political factions on both sides of the spectrum in the US is completely irrelevant to me thinking about the nature of consciousness.
Which of course does not disprove the wider point that there is value to the humanities. There is just more value to some of the humanities, and less value to others. I'm thinking specifically of the ones that make you not write incoherent ramblings and try to pass them off as persuasive arguments.
That's right, some video games can be played as eSports.
I don't know, viruses seem to be working just fine to me.
Ever since I first heard about the idea of grey goo, I've always wondered why no-one realises that grey goo already exists: they're called bacteria and viruses. They reproduce unchecked, can have catastrophic consequences for all other forms of life, and are largely carbon-based nano-machines.
But a government site says otherwise. Oh well.
No, it's not. Look at the Dutch wikipedia for levenslange gevangenisstraf.
So chemical energy generates mechanical energy which then generates electricity. This is not what the word "directly" means.
and then every other screen will play it for free.
It's the same here in the Netherlands as well. A sentence of "life in jail" automatically gets commuted to 30 years, and it's the absolute maximum you can get, no matter how many crimes you've committed. That's why I asked.
Isn't that why "without chance of parole" exists as a sentence modifier?
This has very little to do with the article, but it's something that's always confused my about American law. Why in god's name would you sentence someone to 400 years in prison unless you believe in Highlanders? Similarly, what is the point of consecutive life sentences? Prima facie it seems to be that if one life sentence gets overturned, there's still a couple more to make sure the person stays in prison, but that makes the whole act of overturning a life sentence in the first place a farce.
I always feel uncomfortable answering "on a scale of 1 to 10, how much does it hurt?" whenever I go to the doctor with complaints about pain. From what I've heard the most painful sensation possible is being shot in the kneecap, so that would be a 10, but having never been shot in the kneecap, how could I know how much that hurts? On the other end of the spectrum, what's a 1? Drinking carbonated soft drinks? Popping a zit? A bee-sting? In other words, how does the physician know what I take as my 1 and 10? If I can't do better than make a guess at the level of my own pain, how could the physician possibly get any useful information from that at all?
How is owlbear used in a political context here? A google search wasn't very enlightening.
Who buys porn?
I imagine this is how the owlbear was conceived of. Though to be fair one of the advantages that pencil and paper offers over slashdot is an edit function.
Once there was a gnarled and crooked tree in a forest of stoat oaks. The oaks made fun of him because he was completely useless and served no purpose.
Now there stands a gnarled and crooked tree on a meadow where there once was a forest of stout oaks, free to all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen he could ever want, because being useless is immensely useful.
More like they'll pool their money, buy components for and build a dedicated bitcoin harvester, invest their gains in more equipment, and virtuously circle their way to enough bitcoins to buy free weed for everyone, including the staff.
You are fucking insane. You pay exorbitant prices for terrible service, especially compared to where I live (The Netherlands) and have lived (South Korea).
Oh I see what's happened here, instead of a flu shot they gave you a context vaccine.