Scientific theories aren't proven, they are confirmed through amassing sufficient supporting evidence
actually if you repeat something enough, eventually the majority will believe it... which is the basis of science and religion
look at how many of the scientists you might respect were ridiculed in their time because many scientific theories and discoveries went against the religious majority
you believe in science because in modern society it has achieved widespread acceptance, but even today many scientific theories are ridiculed regardless of evidence if they go against the grain of acccepted beliefs (such as "faster than light", "perpetual motion", etc)
science and religion share more similarities than you would probably care to think about... for example, when you pick up a physics book do you regard it with any more critical thought than a christian would regard the holy bible?
It's something defined and bounded by very concrete set of observations.
yeah... observations mostly by others, which means you have faith in others that what they are claiming to be their observations are true
this is just an academic argument of course, but technically even your own senses could be lying to you
the only basis of reality is generalized consistent observations communicated within a society... which funny enough is pretty close to what religion is based on
it is scientifically impossible to determine that a divinity doesn't exist... and "atheism" is just another religious dogma
i'm not christian or catholic or muslim or bhuddist etc, but i'm not so blind and ignorant to assume that none of those religions could be based on some factual elements
colonizing mars is probable one of the most honorable goals of human civilization (certainly much more honorable than the majority of government and corporate goals) but human society as it currently stands is not ready for cooperative ventures of anywhere near this magnitude
these people would be better off developing their ideas as far as they can and then publishing papers and books so that their knowledge can be passed down through generations to inspire those that may eventually find themselves in a society willing and able to pull together and get such a marvellous achievement off the ground
unfortunately there are far too many scientists (particularly within the NASA and ESA fraternities) focused on unrealistic targets like the moon and mars, and this diverts attention from the real problems that underpin space travel.
the biggest obstacle facing any space venture is (and has always been) getting into earth orbit, and until transport of bulk goods into earth orbit can be achieved cheaply, safely, reliably and regularly, anything else will always be pie in the sky dreams. the problem is that this obstacle however important is the most difficult and also lacks the inspirational aspect... maybe akin to wanting to build the burj khalifa and everyone focusing on building the tower itself with nobody being interesting in digging the hole for the foundations
there are companies working on earth orbit access, and the russians have been the best at it in the world for years but with little interest from much of the rest of the world in terms of investment to develop and expand the russian program (probably for political reasons).
politics, religion and competitive self-interest (capitalist and socialist alike) is what is holding us to this planet for the time being, but someday we may form a more cooperative society. unfortunately it probably won't happen for centuries or before huge devastating world events.
what's the point of choosing astronauts to pilot a ship that hasn't been created yet (and probably won't be created by the USA in the foreseeable future)?
99% of the USA is broke, and the 1% who could potentially afford to make something like mars one happen doesn't give a fuck about the USA or space
if a joint venture between china and russia were publicized it would be more credible
unfortunately i'm not much of a role model as far as outdoorsy things go... apart from hiking as a kid i was never outdoors much and that has continued into my adult life
my kids will probably take after me, but i take some pride in having a good education, not watching much tv, getting out in the garden occasionally, spending time with my kids when they are drawing and playing lego. often one of my kids will sit at my desk with me drawing while i'm programming.
i'm lucky that my kids love going outside. a decent size back yard and a trampoline helps:-)
kids don't need to be "taught" linux... merely expose them to it and they pick it up as easily as any other operating system
my kids (albeit still young at 5 and 7) have access to a couple of old laptops with linux (debian stable) and windows vista, and more often than not they fight over the linux laptop because it has more games to choose from (even if they aren't big expensive titles) and just use the vista laptop for watching dvds or plying the games on one of those 101 arcade games that you find in the cheap bins at kmart. the most popular game is supertux, which is kinda retro similar to the old mario. i haven't put things like freeciv on yet. soon i'll try them on starcraft (with wine on the linux machine) in which case i might even play too on custom maps that i can set up my kids as allies with some extra defenses for them so they don't get wiped out early on... kids naturally hate losing:-)
i won't be spending a crapload of money on computer games for my kids... when they get jobs they can spend their own money.
when i overtake on highways (single lane each direction) i sure as hell don't want to be on the wrong side of the road for very long, so unless the road is straight for miles and obviously clear i generally stick the boot in and get it over with as quick as possible.
problem with fast overtaking is that it's pretty easy in modern cars to get 30-40 km/h over the speed limit (even if you're overtaking someone doing 20 km/hr under) and while most cops are pretty lenient when it comes to overtaking, if you get one on a bad day they can do you (and possibly revoke your licence depending on how much over the limit you were).
the biggest risk i think of using cruise control on a freeway is the desire to keep cruising at the speed limit, which increases frustration levels when you hit a bottleneck (frustration being a big factor in risky driving).
the risk increases when you have multiple cars which appear to be crusing doing the same thing.
when cruising on freeways i often find myself in a game of leapfrog with some other cars.
i can only guess that it may be due to imprecise cruise setting; the car that is cruising slightly faster will slowly overtake the car crusing at a slightly slower speed, and then when the car being overtaken reaches a bottleneck it is forced to brake (and disengage cruise) and then when they reactive it possibly (psychologically?) set the cruise a fraction faster until they become the overtaker of the other cruising car, and then the original overtaker gets stuck behind a slow car and must disengage cruise. just thinking about this would seem to suggest perpetual incremental increase in cruise speed setting, but it doesn't seem to happen so maybe my theory is bunk. i can attest that when i'm able to cruise at the speed limit on a freeway for miles and then i get closer to the city where i can't cruise any more my frustration level increases a bit. some people may be calm if they do yoga or something but i think most would feel the same as i do.
constant speed is not the optimal solution in real traffic
yes it is... the most dangerous drivers on the road in heavy traffic are the ones that you can't predict, and if someone brakes unexpectedly it increases the risk of the driver behind having to apply his brakes harder due to reaction time and uncertainty regarding how hard the person in front of you is braking (and the person behind him applies his brakes harder, until the point where a bottleneck can easily form in heavy traffic), and people who accelerate unexpectedly make lane changes by drivers around them more dnagerous and difficult to plan.
"flowing traffic" is uniform, which requires everyone to be travelling at almost the same constant speed. the moment one car changes speed it creates a domino braking effect behind them (not so much a problem if traffic is light and lanes are clear so that drivers behind can avoid the braking car, but in heavy traffic it can and does cause congestion very easily). see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow#Congestion_Shockwave
control theory (assuming you mean transfer functions and bode plots etc) isn't predictive; its reactive (based on continuous feedback)
i think what TFA is talking about (who bothers reading it) is using GPS+grade contour maps and triple-axis accelerometers to help the system plan in advance for changes in grade, because most with a bit of cruise control experience in hilly terrain can attest that often when you reach the crest of a hill the cruise will overcompensate a bit (sometimes requiring a bit of braking so as not to go over the speed limit too much)
My humble opinion is that laws and policy in America is likely already heavily influenced by Chinese interests... particularly relating to economic decisions.
Politicians aren't stupid. They know government spending is out of control. The reason why they continue to blindly vote through appropriations (often without even reading the bills) is because they are lobbied by powerful people that put them in office in the first place to keep the money flowing no matter what. The reason for wanting the money flowing out of Washington has nothing to do with concern for the poor/jobless but has everything to do with perpetuating increasing levels of public debt. China's economic success is built on the back of American debt. Some argue that China needs the US consumer, and alternatively some argue that China is stupid because if they just allow their currency to rise in value against the dollar the Chinese population would begin to rise from poverty with their newfound increase in purchasing power and over 1 billion Chinese would easily replace the US consumer, and both these arguments may have merit. Utimately regardless of speculation about what would happen if China lost the US consumer or decided to stop buying US treasuries, the underlying premise is that fiat money is born from debt. Wealthy people with access to money require that someone else pay for its creation (otherwise like most borrowers they would have to pay back their money with interest). In this day and age (thanks to the Federal Reserve) that patsy is the US taxpayer. The number of wealthy Chinese businessmen is increasing exponentially and their financial success is thanks to the continued borrowing of the US government and consumers. These wealthy Chinese businessmen are selling products made in China to the United States in return for fiat money that the US creates out of thin air, which kinda seems ludicrous but it means that China may have unprecedented amounts of produce streaming out of its ports to the rest of the world while the majority of its own population lives below the poverty line, but it also means the majority of the population have jobs (and for an increasing number a pathway to success), and also means that China has a perpetual supply of US dollars streaming in, which gives businesses and government in China more power than all but the wealthiest US businessmen (which have ironically been doing business with China for years). Bottom line: China may have more US dollars at its discretion than the US itself, and it is using those dollars to buy anything and everything, including US politicians.
Many will probably waive this off as mere consipracy theory, and maybe they are right, but who cares.
ownership = legal authority over licensing under contract = providing legal authority to others (within scope of contract)
It's pretty standard stuff really.
When you sign up for sites, you are entering into a licensing agreement, which allows you to retain ownership of the content you post but also requires your permission to retain and use content. Note that websites aren't required to do that and some may transfer intellectual property ownership rights to the host in which case you are not legally permitted to reuse the content you post for other purposes. I know it is uncommon but people really should read the entirety of license agreements they agree to, particularly if you are posting something of value personally (such as family photos or commercial designs).
A real world example might be a photographer signing an agreement with a client, in which the client is given permission to use photos for personal or commercial purposes (commercial typically being significantly more expensive) and the client authorises the photographer to use their personal image for promotional purposes. The photographer usually retains the intellectual property rights to the photos they take, but they can't lawfully require the client to destroy all copies of the photos they have purchased. There's no financial transaction in most website signups but the contractual principles are the same. If you agree to it then you are bound by it (unless modified by agreement of both parties or overturned by legal proceedings).
High stakes agreements are almost always negotiated (sometimes involving protracted bickering back and forth) but most consumers don't take advantage of this basic right to negotiation. Standard (or "boilerplate") contracts are often put in front of consumers on a "take it or leave it" basis and there is nothing wrong with companies doing that, but there are often cases where if there is a clause that you want changed in your favor the vendor would be fine with the change but banks on the ingorance of the masses to get the most benefit for himself. Ultimately if a consumer felt he wasn't getting his moneysworth he wouldn't buy the product/service. Except regarding payments, quite often even if one party violates a contract no further action is taken because the legal action is perceived to be not worth the headache. It is unfortunate that it is often the case that a corporation with a large base of low value individual customers under contract will violate their minimum service requirements (even under consumer law) because they know most of their customers don't have the ability or resolve for legal recourse.
If you post your personal information to someone else's server, then you have lost control of it... end of story.
You can never be sure of what then happens to it regardless of what laws are in place or proposed.
Apart from not having any guarantees of the character of the corporations/employees/contractors/technicians that have access to the data you post, you also have no idea whether the data is being intercepted and stored for later decryption by government/hackers/criminal organizations.
Moral of story... if users of the internet really give a damn about their online privacy they should take a little more responsibility for the "information" they spew.
Slashdot Mirror
denying evolution itself isn't happening at all is denying direct observational facts
wow! have you really been observing evolution!? how old are you?
Scientific theories aren't proven, they are confirmed through amassing sufficient supporting evidence
actually if you repeat something enough, eventually the majority will believe it... which is the basis of science and religion
look at how many of the scientists you might respect were ridiculed in their time because many scientific theories and discoveries went against the religious majority
you believe in science because in modern society it has achieved widespread acceptance, but even today many scientific theories are ridiculed regardless of evidence if they go against the grain of acccepted beliefs (such as "faster than light", "perpetual motion", etc)
science and religion share more similarities than you would probably care to think about... for example, when you pick up a physics book do you regard it with any more critical thought than a christian would regard the holy bible?
It's something defined and bounded by very concrete set of observations.
yeah... observations mostly by others, which means you have faith in others that what they are claiming to be their observations are true
this is just an academic argument of course, but technically even your own senses could be lying to you
the only basis of reality is generalized consistent observations communicated within a society... which funny enough is pretty close to what religion is based on
if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective.
funny...it's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist... i'd love to see you try :-)
"self-evidence" isn't evidence of anything
IQ tests are really good for figuring out how good someone is at doing IQ tests
it is scientifically impossible to determine that a divinity doesn't exist... and "atheism" is just another religious dogma
i'm not christian or catholic or muslim or bhuddist etc, but i'm not so blind and ignorant to assume that none of those religions could be based on some factual elements
Their problem isn't getting viewers - it's keeping them. Why? Because the programming will be boring as hell.
depends... if they send a bunch of male and female porn stars cramped in a capsule together it could be quite popular
colonizing mars is probable one of the most honorable goals of human civilization (certainly much more honorable than the majority of government and corporate goals) but human society as it currently stands is not ready for cooperative ventures of anywhere near this magnitude
these people would be better off developing their ideas as far as they can and then publishing papers and books so that their knowledge can be passed down through generations to inspire those that may eventually find themselves in a society willing and able to pull together and get such a marvellous achievement off the ground
unfortunately there are far too many scientists (particularly within the NASA and ESA fraternities) focused on unrealistic targets like the moon and mars, and this diverts attention from the real problems that underpin space travel.
the biggest obstacle facing any space venture is (and has always been) getting into earth orbit, and until transport of bulk goods into earth orbit can be achieved cheaply, safely, reliably and regularly, anything else will always be pie in the sky dreams. the problem is that this obstacle however important is the most difficult and also lacks the inspirational aspect... maybe akin to wanting to build the burj khalifa and everyone focusing on building the tower itself with nobody being interesting in digging the hole for the foundations
there are companies working on earth orbit access, and the russians have been the best at it in the world for years but with little interest from much of the rest of the world in terms of investment to develop and expand the russian program (probably for political reasons).
politics, religion and competitive self-interest (capitalist and socialist alike) is what is holding us to this planet for the time being, but someday we may form a more cooperative society. unfortunately it probably won't happen for centuries or before huge devastating world events.
This is one of the biggest scams in history to make money for the people pushing it.
actually it's tame compared to the enormous ponzi scheme that is US social security
Has anyone looked at the site?
anyone with half a brain could figure out how unrealistic this was merely from the title alone... looking at the site is pointless
oops... actually what i meant was "almost as stupid as buying pockets of land on the moon"
those able to successfully sell land on the moon are pretty switched on
...selling pockets of land on the moon
what's the point of choosing astronauts to pilot a ship that hasn't been created yet (and probably won't be created by the USA in the foreseeable future)?
99% of the USA is broke, and the 1% who could potentially afford to make something like mars one happen doesn't give a fuck about the USA or space
if a joint venture between china and russia were publicized it would be more credible
wholeheartedly agree
unfortunately i'm not much of a role model as far as outdoorsy things go... apart from hiking as a kid i was never outdoors much and that has continued into my adult life
my kids will probably take after me, but i take some pride in having a good education, not watching much tv, getting out in the garden occasionally, spending time with my kids when they are drawing and playing lego. often one of my kids will sit at my desk with me drawing while i'm programming.
i'm lucky that my kids love going outside. a decent size back yard and a trampoline helps :-)
When teaching them Linux
kids don't need to be "taught" linux... merely expose them to it and they pick it up as easily as any other operating system
my kids (albeit still young at 5 and 7) have access to a couple of old laptops with linux (debian stable) and windows vista, and more often than not they fight over the linux laptop because it has more games to choose from (even if they aren't big expensive titles) and just use the vista laptop for watching dvds or plying the games on one of those 101 arcade games that you find in the cheap bins at kmart. the most popular game is supertux, which is kinda retro similar to the old mario. i haven't put things like freeciv on yet. soon i'll try them on starcraft (with wine on the linux machine) in which case i might even play too on custom maps that i can set up my kids as allies with some extra defenses for them so they don't get wiped out early on... kids naturally hate losing :-)
i won't be spending a crapload of money on computer games for my kids... when they get jobs they can spend their own money.
when i overtake on highways (single lane each direction) i sure as hell don't want to be on the wrong side of the road for very long, so unless the road is straight for miles and obviously clear i generally stick the boot in and get it over with as quick as possible.
problem with fast overtaking is that it's pretty easy in modern cars to get 30-40 km/h over the speed limit (even if you're overtaking someone doing 20 km/hr under) and while most cops are pretty lenient when it comes to overtaking, if you get one on a bad day they can do you (and possibly revoke your licence depending on how much over the limit you were).
the biggest risk i think of using cruise control on a freeway is the desire to keep cruising at the speed limit, which increases frustration levels when you hit a bottleneck (frustration being a big factor in risky driving).
the risk increases when you have multiple cars which appear to be crusing doing the same thing.
when cruising on freeways i often find myself in a game of leapfrog with some other cars.
i can only guess that it may be due to imprecise cruise setting; the car that is cruising slightly faster will slowly overtake the car crusing at a slightly slower speed, and then when the car being overtaken reaches a bottleneck it is forced to brake (and disengage cruise) and then when they reactive it possibly (psychologically?) set the cruise a fraction faster until they become the overtaker of the other cruising car, and then the original overtaker gets stuck behind a slow car and must disengage cruise.
just thinking about this would seem to suggest perpetual incremental increase in cruise speed setting, but it doesn't seem to happen so maybe my theory is bunk.
i can attest that when i'm able to cruise at the speed limit on a freeway for miles and then i get closer to the city where i can't cruise any more my frustration level increases a bit. some people may be calm if they do yoga or something but i think most would feel the same as i do.
constant speed is not the optimal solution in real traffic
yes it is... the most dangerous drivers on the road in heavy traffic are the ones that you can't predict, and if someone brakes unexpectedly it increases the risk of the driver behind having to apply his brakes harder due to reaction time and uncertainty regarding how hard the person in front of you is braking (and the person behind him applies his brakes harder, until the point where a bottleneck can easily form in heavy traffic), and people who accelerate unexpectedly make lane changes by drivers around them more dnagerous and difficult to plan.
"flowing traffic" is uniform, which requires everyone to be travelling at almost the same constant speed. the moment one car changes speed it creates a domino braking effect behind them (not so much a problem if traffic is light and lanes are clear so that drivers behind can avoid the braking car, but in heavy traffic it can and does cause congestion very easily). see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow#Congestion_Shockwave
control theory that is predictive
control theory (assuming you mean transfer functions and bode plots etc) isn't predictive; its reactive (based on continuous feedback)
i think what TFA is talking about (who bothers reading it) is using GPS+grade contour maps and triple-axis accelerometers to help the system plan in advance for changes in grade, because most with a bit of cruise control experience in hilly terrain can attest that often when you reach the crest of a hill the cruise will overcompensate a bit (sometimes requiring a bit of braking so as not to go over the speed limit too much)
My humble opinion is that laws and policy in America is likely already heavily influenced by Chinese interests... particularly relating to economic decisions.
Politicians aren't stupid. They know government spending is out of control. The reason why they continue to blindly vote through appropriations (often without even reading the bills) is because they are lobbied by powerful people that put them in office in the first place to keep the money flowing no matter what.
The reason for wanting the money flowing out of Washington has nothing to do with concern for the poor/jobless but has everything to do with perpetuating increasing levels of public debt.
China's economic success is built on the back of American debt.
Some argue that China needs the US consumer, and alternatively some argue that China is stupid because if they just allow their currency to rise in value against the dollar the Chinese population would begin to rise from poverty with their newfound increase in purchasing power and over 1 billion Chinese would easily replace the US consumer, and both these arguments may have merit.
Utimately regardless of speculation about what would happen if China lost the US consumer or decided to stop buying US treasuries, the underlying premise is that fiat money is born from debt.
Wealthy people with access to money require that someone else pay for its creation (otherwise like most borrowers they would have to pay back their money with interest). In this day and age (thanks to the Federal Reserve) that patsy is the US taxpayer. The number of wealthy Chinese businessmen is increasing exponentially and their financial success is thanks to the continued borrowing of the US government and consumers. These wealthy Chinese businessmen are selling products made in China to the United States in return for fiat money that the US creates out of thin air, which kinda seems ludicrous but it means that China may have unprecedented amounts of produce streaming out of its ports to the rest of the world while the majority of its own population lives below the poverty line, but it also means the majority of the population have jobs (and for an increasing number a pathway to success), and also means that China has a perpetual supply of US dollars streaming in, which gives businesses and government in China more power than all but the wealthiest US businessmen (which have ironically been doing business with China for years).
Bottom line: China may have more US dollars at its discretion than the US itself, and it is using those dollars to buy anything and everything, including US politicians.
Many will probably waive this off as mere consipracy theory, and maybe they are right, but who cares.
In which case you don't own it.
ownership = legal authority over
licensing under contract = providing legal authority to others (within scope of contract)
It's pretty standard stuff really.
When you sign up for sites, you are entering into a licensing agreement, which allows you to retain ownership of the content you post but also requires your permission to retain and use content. Note that websites aren't required to do that and some may transfer intellectual property ownership rights to the host in which case you are not legally permitted to reuse the content you post for other purposes. I know it is uncommon but people really should read the entirety of license agreements they agree to, particularly if you are posting something of value personally (such as family photos or commercial designs).
A real world example might be a photographer signing an agreement with a client, in which the client is given permission to use photos for personal or commercial purposes (commercial typically being significantly more expensive) and the client authorises the photographer to use their personal image for promotional purposes. The photographer usually retains the intellectual property rights to the photos they take, but they can't lawfully require the client to destroy all copies of the photos they have purchased. There's no financial transaction in most website signups but the contractual principles are the same. If you agree to it then you are bound by it (unless modified by agreement of both parties or overturned by legal proceedings).
High stakes agreements are almost always negotiated (sometimes involving protracted bickering back and forth) but most consumers don't take advantage of this basic right to negotiation. Standard (or "boilerplate") contracts are often put in front of consumers on a "take it or leave it" basis and there is nothing wrong with companies doing that, but there are often cases where if there is a clause that you want changed in your favor the vendor would be fine with the change but banks on the ingorance of the masses to get the most benefit for himself. Ultimately if a consumer felt he wasn't getting his moneysworth he wouldn't buy the product/service. Except regarding payments, quite often even if one party violates a contract no further action is taken because the legal action is perceived to be not worth the headache. It is unfortunate that it is often the case that a corporation with a large base of low value individual customers under contract will violate their minimum service requirements (even under consumer law) because they know most of their customers don't have the ability or resolve for legal recourse.
why are industry-altering innovations necessary?
the whole expectation of continuous economic growth is flawed
if you have a spare half hour, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg
perhaps baked into FOSS
that's one reason (of many) why FOSS will become ever increasingly prevailent
closed-source simply cannot be trusted
even if most users don't care to review FOSS source code, just the knowledge that anyone can and many likely are is enough reassurance
if users of cars really give a damn about their vehicles they should take a little more responsibility for them
they do... it's called car insurance
bad analogy... sorry
The idea of an erasable internet is laughable.
If you post your personal information to someone else's server, then you have lost control of it... end of story.
You can never be sure of what then happens to it regardless of what laws are in place or proposed.
Apart from not having any guarantees of the character of the corporations/employees/contractors/technicians that have access to the data you post, you also have no idea whether the data is being intercepted and stored for later decryption by government/hackers/criminal organizations.
Moral of story... if users of the internet really give a damn about their online privacy they should take a little more responsibility for the "information" they spew.
almost as dumb as some idiots that think google=internet
most of the web is dynamic already