The original said "whatEVER the French call la dolce vita", implying that the writer of that sentence is aware that French and Italian are two different languages.
No, it defines hadrons as follows: "Hadrons are subatomic particles that can take part in the strong interaction – the force that binds protons inside the nuclei of atoms." It then goes on to say that Hadrons are theorized to be constituted by quarks. Presumably the evidence they have for these particles being hadrons is that they take part in the strong interaction.
don't all animals have cardiovascular systems? I guess I haven't really thought about it before, but I just assumed that creatures like snails and spiders must have them too, otherwise how would they transport oxygen to their cells?
Moths also had a much harsher selection pressure. Maybe we would see similar results if we killed anyone over the age of 10 who couldn't read at a 12th grade level.
Initially, quality is what is important, because initially quality is the distinguishing factor. However, if there is a large enough amount of time between when this quality first appears and when this quality can be replicated then the provenance becomes important too. There's nothing irrational about it; given a choice between two things of equal quality, the thing that has a greater number of desirable features will be more valuable. And considering the history of an object as valuable is only irrational in the sense that every intrinsic value judgement is irrational.
By the way, I just checked and there is currently a first edition of On the Origin of Species on Abebooks for 135k, and it's inscribed by Darwin's son. No autograph. Still, if I have Silicon Valley level money I'd probably snap it right up.
I can't tell the difference between a signed first edition of On the Origin of Species and a regular seventh edition either if I'm only allowed to look at certain pages, but that doesn't mean they're of equal value. The value of a Stradivarius lies not in the sound it produces but in its provenance.
No. The anthropic principle states that the universe is the way it is because if it had been different (not capable of generating life) we wouldn't have been in it to perceive it. My point is that there may be aspects of reality that we can't grasp in a theory because there is no underlying pattern to grasp. There would simply be a list of facts, nothing more.
In spite of my better judgement I'm about to attempt an analogy, so bear with me here. The lowest number of moves to unscramble a maximally scrambled rubik's cube (a 3x3x3 one) is 20. That is, for every configuration of a rubik's cube, there is a sequence of 20 moves or less that will unscramble it. However, there is no algorithm to generate those solutions. They are unstructured; they're simply lists of moves. The algorithms used by human (and computer) rubik's cube solvers are far from move-optimal, but benefit from being executable by non-omniscient beings. They pick out some pattern that is applicable to the rubik's cube, and then direct you in manipulating it according to that pattern until it's solved.
The way science understands the world is by comparing new data to what we already know. For example, we know penicillin kills bacteria; if we discover a new disease, and then discover that it is caused by bacteria, we can safely draw the conclusion that we'll probably be able to treat it with penicillin. We've used science to discover a pattern in the world ('penicillin kills bacteria'), then use deduction to determine where it is and isn't applicable, and form new categories based on what happens when we encounter new data (like bacteria not killed by penicillin being classified as anti-biotic resistant). Science is basically a collection of patterns like this, and because they're patterns (structures, structured rules, whatever you want to call them) we can understand them.
Now, what I wonder about is this. What if the fact that we live in a matter universe now (rather than an anti-matter one) is like the set of move-optimal solutions to a rubik's cube? They both describe a certain state of affairs, but they also both completely lack (could lack) any kind of structure. And because they lack this structure, there is nothing for us to latch onto, nothing for us to understand, no pattern to detect. It is simply the case, and there is no further reason. There is no reason why there is no structure in the move-optimal solutions to a rubik's cube. There might not be a reason why there is a massive matter/anti-matter imbalance either.
This is something I've been trying to work out for a while, so please excuse me if my explanation is unclear. I just think it would be a really interesting possibility, something which isn't often discussed, maybe because it simply gets overlooked.
doesn't include a consideration of my lifespan. If I only live 100 years my opponent can play scissors every single game and play rock continuously after I am dead and the restriction would still be satisfied. In other words, "having to play rock 50 percent of the time" doesn't give you any relevant information about your opponent's behaviour.
No, what he's given up on is trying to replicate dubious results allegedly obtained by others. In other words, by giving up he has significantly contributed to stem cell research.
I see you have cracked the Bennett Haselton code! All of his posts are like this, all of them get a platform they don't deserve, and I still don't know how he manages to get them there. What kind of skeletons does CmdrTaco have in his basement?
They can evolve, but they have evolved to a local maximum where they can't determine whether visual information received indicates a zebra, mud, or water. As they seem to be thriving at this level, there is no pressure for them to evolve the required discriminatory abilities.
No, I don't think that's it. The image of a nerd I used to have was of someone who was really interested in a very specific topic, and became very knowledgeable about it*. It was a specific kind of knowledge, too; not so much the structured knowledge you would find in a scientific subject (otherwise everyone in grad school and afterwards would count as a nerd, and that's just not the case), but just an endless array of facts. A professor can tell you why a combustion engine is designed the way it is; a nerd can tell you every combustion engine ever made by a specific manufacturer. This is the kind of person I was and am, and this is my image of a nerd. I can't reconstruct how I constructed it, but as I was largely ignorant of the examples you cite that influence your concept of nerd (not being from the US), I don't think those were it.
Nerds now, however, are people who, at the end of a long game of Telephone, somehow fell face first into a barrel of thick rimmed glasses and Game of Thrones DVDs. Your social analysis may be more on point there.
*Or very skilful, in the case of programming or chess, where the facts/structure distinction kind of breaks down. Maybe I should just grandfather those two skills in wholesale as simply being 'essentially nerdy'.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you're not a lawyer because you're bad at analogies and just confused theft with fraud.
The original said "whatEVER the French call la dolce vita", implying that the writer of that sentence is aware that French and Italian are two different languages.
No, it defines hadrons as follows: "Hadrons are subatomic particles that can take part in the strong interaction – the force that binds protons inside the nuclei of atoms." It then goes on to say that Hadrons are theorized to be constituted by quarks. Presumably the evidence they have for these particles being hadrons is that they take part in the strong interaction.
But here is an opposing viewpoint from someone without the ability to evaluate truth claims.
don't all animals have cardiovascular systems? I guess I haven't really thought about it before, but I just assumed that creatures like snails and spiders must have them too, otherwise how would they transport oxygen to their cells?
Moths also had a much harsher selection pressure. Maybe we would see similar results if we killed anyone over the age of 10 who couldn't read at a 12th grade level.
No it's called neuroplasticity, here's a wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Initially, quality is what is important, because initially quality is the distinguishing factor. However, if there is a large enough amount of time between when this quality first appears and when this quality can be replicated then the provenance becomes important too. There's nothing irrational about it; given a choice between two things of equal quality, the thing that has a greater number of desirable features will be more valuable. And considering the history of an object as valuable is only irrational in the sense that every intrinsic value judgement is irrational.
By the way, I just checked and there is currently a first edition of On the Origin of Species on Abebooks for 135k, and it's inscribed by Darwin's son. No autograph. Still, if I have Silicon Valley level money I'd probably snap it right up.
I can't tell the difference between a signed first edition of On the Origin of Species and a regular seventh edition either if I'm only allowed to look at certain pages, but that doesn't mean they're of equal value. The value of a Stradivarius lies not in the sound it produces but in its provenance.
No, no and no. It could, it could and it could, but there is a difference between what is possible and what is actual.
was fucking fascinating to read.
No. The anthropic principle states that the universe is the way it is because if it had been different (not capable of generating life) we wouldn't have been in it to perceive it. My point is that there may be aspects of reality that we can't grasp in a theory because there is no underlying pattern to grasp. There would simply be a list of facts, nothing more.
In spite of my better judgement I'm about to attempt an analogy, so bear with me here. The lowest number of moves to unscramble a maximally scrambled rubik's cube (a 3x3x3 one) is 20. That is, for every configuration of a rubik's cube, there is a sequence of 20 moves or less that will unscramble it. However, there is no algorithm to generate those solutions. They are unstructured; they're simply lists of moves. The algorithms used by human (and computer) rubik's cube solvers are far from move-optimal, but benefit from being executable by non-omniscient beings. They pick out some pattern that is applicable to the rubik's cube, and then direct you in manipulating it according to that pattern until it's solved.
The way science understands the world is by comparing new data to what we already know. For example, we know penicillin kills bacteria; if we discover a new disease, and then discover that it is caused by bacteria, we can safely draw the conclusion that we'll probably be able to treat it with penicillin. We've used science to discover a pattern in the world ('penicillin kills bacteria'), then use deduction to determine where it is and isn't applicable, and form new categories based on what happens when we encounter new data (like bacteria not killed by penicillin being classified as anti-biotic resistant). Science is basically a collection of patterns like this, and because they're patterns (structures, structured rules, whatever you want to call them) we can understand them.
Now, what I wonder about is this. What if the fact that we live in a matter universe now (rather than an anti-matter one) is like the set of move-optimal solutions to a rubik's cube? They both describe a certain state of affairs, but they also both completely lack (could lack) any kind of structure. And because they lack this structure, there is nothing for us to latch onto, nothing for us to understand, no pattern to detect. It is simply the case, and there is no further reason. There is no reason why there is no structure in the move-optimal solutions to a rubik's cube. There might not be a reason why there is a massive matter/anti-matter imbalance either.
This is something I've been trying to work out for a while, so please excuse me if my explanation is unclear. I just think it would be a really interesting possibility, something which isn't often discussed, maybe because it simply gets overlooked.
It is because most people accept authority/tradition over logic and epistemology.
doesn't include a consideration of my lifespan. If I only live 100 years my opponent can play scissors every single game and play rock continuously after I am dead and the restriction would still be satisfied. In other words, "having to play rock 50 percent of the time" doesn't give you any relevant information about your opponent's behaviour.
Please describe to me in concrete terms (facts, not FUD) how google is worse than facebook.
Can you imagine the fucking shit storm if NK actually ever hit anything? Call me an optimist, but that would be a sight to see.
No, what he's given up on is trying to replicate dubious results allegedly obtained by others. In other words, by giving up he has significantly contributed to stem cell research.
Don't let people take naked pictures of you.
I was going to post exactly this. The summary provides no reason to assume that the extra assumption is warranted or even logical.
I see you have cracked the Bennett Haselton code! All of his posts are like this, all of them get a platform they don't deserve, and I still don't know how he manages to get them there. What kind of skeletons does CmdrTaco have in his basement?
replace "mud or water" with "things they don't want to land on." I made a thinko.
They can evolve, but they have evolved to a local maximum where they can't determine whether visual information received indicates a zebra, mud, or water. As they seem to be thriving at this level, there is no pressure for them to evolve the required discriminatory abilities.
No, I don't think that's it. The image of a nerd I used to have was of someone who was really interested in a very specific topic, and became very knowledgeable about it*. It was a specific kind of knowledge, too; not so much the structured knowledge you would find in a scientific subject (otherwise everyone in grad school and afterwards would count as a nerd, and that's just not the case), but just an endless array of facts. A professor can tell you why a combustion engine is designed the way it is; a nerd can tell you every combustion engine ever made by a specific manufacturer. This is the kind of person I was and am, and this is my image of a nerd. I can't reconstruct how I constructed it, but as I was largely ignorant of the examples you cite that influence your concept of nerd (not being from the US), I don't think those were it.
Nerds now, however, are people who, at the end of a long game of Telephone, somehow fell face first into a barrel of thick rimmed glasses and Game of Thrones DVDs. Your social analysis may be more on point there.
*Or very skilful, in the case of programming or chess, where the facts/structure distinction kind of breaks down. Maybe I should just grandfather those two skills in wholesale as simply being 'essentially nerdy'.