I say we rename "Google" to "The Democratic People's Republic of Google". This would make it more clear that the product^Wcustomer^Wnetizen is empowered.
Bioinspiration is a refinement of the older term biomimicry.
How has it been refined? Why has it been refined? Why isn't this indicated in the summary?
Also, you could have realized it's a new word for you and googled it
Yeah, I also could follow other passive news aggregators or read domain-specific news sites or perhaps wait for the centre to find something worth publishing in an academic journal. All of these things are possible without visiting Slashdot.
to make it one you know.
And that's another problem with the Internet - people feel that you can learn something just by using a layman's search engine like Google and checking a site or two. Google is great for getting me a hundred non-authoritative responses to any question I may feel like posing, many of which will be wrong at best and misleading at worst. I have in neither mathematics nor law ever found anything remarkable with a Google search.
Look up "self improvement" and "self respect" while you're at it.
I would like to see Slashdot be as good as it can be, or at least as good as it once was, therefore I have no self respect.
And yeah, you already bitched about "biomimicry"
What?
That was in the same item where you whined about wanting more ass-licking to... blah blah keyboard warrior
Like most clever people, I learn best from straight answers to straight questions, not from jock sarcasm. Thanks for teaching me almost nothing.
The art of communication is the art of being understood.
The art of rhetoric is the art of convincing others.
Primary source authors can often get away with doing neither well - their readers know the field and can fill in the gaps. But the only purpose of a site like Slashdot, pointless comment threads excepted, is to effectively communicate on what is reported elsewhere.
The same problem is apparent in Wikipedia. There are clearly many Wikipedia authors who either know the established parts of their field well or who know where to find relevant information. But it is so rare to find people who are good at presenting information. There is, alas, a modern notion that it is sufficient to merely know something but unnecessary to be able to understand and articulate your factoid. I have have never seen people more angry at me than when I ask them to explain themselves.
2. "(if you're old enough)" is redundant - we can work out our own ages and guess why we may not have heard of something;
3. Never use the phrase "drive innovation" unless you're writing a management speak generator;
4. British English is still spoken by far more people than American;
5. What is the purpose of biomimicry? Don't give me an example - give me some idea of why it's useful so I want to read more;
6. The display "generate colors" - submitter was clearly so proud of being able to insert a non-pretentious Americanised spelling that he forgot his gramma;
7. (don't explain things in brackets like this);
8. For "products and technologies, where ideas would be advanced to a proof of concept or working model...", see 3. Too much babble. How about "An incubator will develop proofs of concept or working models for licensing";
9. What is "bioinspiration"?
Why, yes, I did get out on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but that doesn't excuse this summary.
And yet, over 90% of those answers were actually people telling you what an idiot you are,
Well, no, only a few (like yourself) were empty enough to provide nothing but insults. But it's good when wrong people get angry. Anger is a natural immature response to lack of understanding. When people mature, they often look back at when they got angry and review what made them angry.
Same towards you. I took real philosophy courses in high school and university and you know what?
I hear what you're saying and it sounds like "I took a class I am smart". There's a dissertation behind me full of the philosophy of mathematics, and my supervisor's name would be recognisable if you have any interest in the history of mathematics. If you want, I am happy to play big name and big word games, but that doesn't really show anything. I'm not playing academic top trumps - I'm trying to stimulate thought from a bunch of intellectual teenagers. That's never easy, but it's occasionally productive.
All of them pointed out that questions like yours are pointless mental masturbation used by idiots to make themselves feel like they're smart.
Then either the department was awful, or - more likely - you completely misunderstood the message.
Just because you make a false claim about your pointless question being significant, deep, and meaningful doesn't mean that it is
Where did I say it was deep? It's obviously significant and meaningful that everyone has to have faith in their memory. It's prerequisite to everything you do. The fact that it causes so much anger rather than quiet acceptance is kinda interesting.
That's funny, I've seen it rejected at least thirty times, just in this slashdot thread. This means that you not only fail at philosophy, you also fail at reading comprehension - which probably explains why you fail so hard at philosophy.
To reject something, one must show that it is inconsistent. Apart from a couple of instant recognitions of the question and the work that's come from it, all I've read are people providing wrong answers and people telling me the answer doesn't matter. The "wrong answer" set have hope; the "don't care" set are like the jocks who say, "Why do you like math, nerd? Is that going to get you girls, nerd?" and are merely laughable.
When I hear terms like "fail hard" I know I've got a Keyboard Warrior.
He was pointing out an example of an immature person taking an action they know damn well is only going to annoy the people they're acting towards (the kid yelling "citizen's arrest!" in a situation where it isn't appropriate), and saying that it was equivalent to your own actions, which it is.
No, I still don't understand, sorry. What is wrong with a child demanding that the driver stop speeding? To cry "citizen's arrest!" would be a misunderstanding of the law where I live, but the sentiment is perfectly understandable. Maybe you have put yourself in the driver's seat and think that you know better than everyone from society's legal system to the concerned kid in the back - looking it at like that, I can certainly understand why that analogy has been raised.
I saw very little thinking about premises, and very little results from your attempt at socratic teaching. All in all, I rate your attempt a flat zero.
Then you're not reading hard enough. Count the number of experiments people have tried to make up in this thread.
From the feedback I've gotten, I'm pretty sure I'm a better one than you.
I expect you realise the absurdity of that statement, given what it assumes.
The trick is knowing when it is a good answer, and when it is a bad answer.
IME, "Who cares?" is what a child answers when they find a question difficult. It's possible to say "That question is unanswerable because..." or "That question is unimportant because...", but your main focus has been on being angry at someone for asking a question - and that's damn entertaining.
No, I remember that Plato's cave was a nice starting point about this idea in middle school.
Are you going to continue keeping your mouth shut on why, or are you going to explain it to the class and risk revealing your misunderstanding?
Did you read what you quoted? Not sure why you think that it was supposed to answer all questions.
It's a habit of dilettantes to remember something they read and assume it's an answer to the subject at hand.
It's been rejected as the basis of any form of reasoning about the physical world,
How can a question be rejected as a form of reasoning?
Faith in memory is certainly a basis for any form of reasoning about the physical world, if that's what you're worried about.
as well as [discussion] about moral imperatives or the limits of logic.
Such as, say, the problem of induction. Some AC in this thread, evidently with more clue than every other poster combined, immediately identified this early on.
The answers it produces are either trivial, useless or contradictory. For what it's worth - you should be able to tell by now with which philosophers I'm throwing in my lot.
I've already learned that you're one of those people too afraid to present a concrete argument.
As for your incredulity about learning about Plato's cave in middle school, that says more about your education than about my knowledge of philosophy.
Your reading comprehension is just awful. I can only hand hold you so much.
I'm sorry. I thought you were trolling or bored, but I think you're just of limited wit.
Err, OK, used to be a common scenario for me: extended family. ~12 people eating, sharing food from a buffet setup.
We all manage to eat a fair share. There are even leftovers for the fridge.
Initially dividing out onto plates would and does lead to a huge amount of wasted food as each person wants to eat a different amount of a different thing.
Perhaps "reliable" is too likely to be read as "always 100% correct", and I apologise for that.. I didn't want to confuse the basic question, but what you've said is quite true.
You can indeed show that memory is not always reliable.
But you can only do that once you have assumed by faith that memory is at least mostly reliable.
I hypothesise that you will have to use your memory in order to remember all the above, and again to check each page, and again to recall your results for a conclusion.
You are welcome to try again, but better minds than ours have found no appropriate experiment.
No. The intention was to flame the irrational ones who thought that the question is answerable, until reason overtook emotion and allowed them to reconsider their position.
your brain is hardwired to trust your perception and memory unless it's horribly broken.
I'm sorry for your limitation. I'm able to make a conscious choice to make up for the fact that, in reality, memory and perception are often quite unreliable so need reflecting on and compensating for.
Your question isn't intractable. It's sterile. It has the same amount of predictive and analytical power as "Goddidit". It's utterly boring. It leads nowhere.
And yet it's brought out a good 80+ wrong answers and the chance for people to think again about their premises.
I hope for the world's sake that you're no teacher.
Not only that, but the Greeks already knew about it and found it to be an approach that lead nowhere.
Perhaps you're misinterpreting some Greek writing, or misunderstanding the question.
The best - and really only response - I got to this question is "Who cares?"
All questions can be answered like that. Like I said somewhere else in this thread, why aren't we all out playing football on this sunny day?
As for which texts we read in "middle school", Plato's cave analogy was a nice starting point.
OK, so you remember reading about Plato's Cave at school and you think that this answers all the elementary philosophical questions. Well, nope. Plato was obsessed with the idea of an ephemeral world of change and decay as perceived by the senses and felt that his mind's eye could go beyond that and somehow witness the truth. It was a great genesis for mathematics but produced a rather mediocre start to science. And it had fuck all to do with trusting one's memory..
Descartes in High School was a bit more interesting, but he fell flat due to the necessity to use circular reasoning to get anywhere with that approach.
"That approach" being...
it's the attitude of people like you who think they've found some special trick question. You haven't.
In the dozen or so responses I've made in this thread before you posted, I've told people repeatedly that this is a well-known question and that they should think twice before thinking there's a good answer. But you might as well carry on a roll of historical ignorance with some contemporary. ignorance.
You're merely regurgitating a 2000 year old discussion that was rejected pretty much immediately.
Nope. The question has not been "rejected" ever, just deemed unanswerable. But it's formed part of "sterile debate" on the power and limitations of philosophical induction per Hume, leading to Popper's falsifiability, and all the other Philosophy 101 names you could have dropped if you hadn't engaged bullshit mode.
You're like a 9 year old who yells citizen's arrest! every time he sees his parents speeding. It merely betrays your own shallowness and lack of understanding.
I'm not sure what speeding being a summary offence (E+W) has to do with this discussion, but OK.
And what's with the quotes. Did you do the appropriate air quotes with your fingers as well?
I thought air quotes were an illustration of incredulity. But your nick was just as middle-school as your argument. Not that it matters - you'd have been equally wrong without the silly name.
Slashdot Mirror
Be who you are, without apology.
The polar opposite of "When in Rome...", this is exactly why everyone abroad merely tolerates the American guest.
OBL was being who he was without apology on 9/11.
Anyway, Britain's heritage forms part of America's heritage.
I say we rename "Google" to "The Democratic People's Republic of Google". This would make it more clear that the product^Wcustomer^Wnetizen is empowered.
Bioinspiration is a refinement of the older term biomimicry.
How has it been refined? Why has it been refined? Why isn't this indicated in the summary?
Also, you could have realized it's a new word for you and googled it
Yeah, I also could follow other passive news aggregators or read domain-specific news sites or perhaps wait for the centre to find something worth publishing in an academic journal. All of these things are possible without visiting Slashdot.
to make it one you know.
And that's another problem with the Internet - people feel that you can learn something just by using a layman's search engine like Google and checking a site or two. Google is great for getting me a hundred non-authoritative responses to any question I may feel like posing, many of which will be wrong at best and misleading at worst. I have in neither mathematics nor law ever found anything remarkable with a Google search.
Look up "self improvement" and "self respect" while you're at it.
I would like to see Slashdot be as good as it can be, or at least as good as it once was, therefore I have no self respect.
And yeah, you already bitched about "biomimicry"
What?
That was in the same item where you whined about wanting more ass-licking to... blah blah keyboard warrior
Like most clever people, I learn best from straight answers to straight questions, not from jock sarcasm. Thanks for teaching me almost nothing.
The art of communication is the art of being understood.
The art of rhetoric is the art of convincing others.
Primary source authors can often get away with doing neither well - their readers know the field and can fill in the gaps. But the only purpose of a site like Slashdot, pointless comment threads excepted, is to effectively communicate on what is reported elsewhere.
The same problem is apparent in Wikipedia. There are clearly many Wikipedia authors who either know the established parts of their field well or who know where to find relevant information. But it is so rare to find people who are good at presenting information. There is, alas, a modern notion that it is sufficient to merely know something but unnecessary to be able to understand and articulate your factoid. I have have never seen people more angry at me than when I ask them to explain themselves.
You think that science can be used to observe and predict because you have faith in your memory.
If you didn't have faith in your memory, you'd have no idea whether science can be used to observe and predict.
Google's solution is effectively to make all content belong to Google.
Gooooo cloud!
1. Too, many, commas;
2. "(if you're old enough)" is redundant - we can work out our own ages and guess why we may not have heard of something;
3. Never use the phrase "drive innovation" unless you're writing a management speak generator;
4. British English is still spoken by far more people than American;
5. What is the purpose of biomimicry? Don't give me an example - give me some idea of why it's useful so I want to read more;
6. The display "generate colors" - submitter was clearly so proud of being able to insert a non-pretentious Americanised spelling that he forgot his gramma;
7. (don't explain things in brackets like this);
8. For "products and technologies, where ideas would be advanced to a proof of concept or working model...", see 3. Too much babble. How about "An incubator will develop proofs of concept or working models for licensing";
9. What is "bioinspiration"?
Why, yes, I did get out on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but that doesn't excuse this summary.
You seem awfully familiar...
And yet, over 90% of those answers were actually people telling you what an idiot you are,
Well, no, only a few (like yourself) were empty enough to provide nothing but insults. But it's good when wrong people get angry. Anger is a natural immature response to lack of understanding. When people mature, they often look back at when they got angry and review what made them angry.
Same towards you. I took real philosophy courses in high school and university and you know what?
I hear what you're saying and it sounds like "I took a class I am smart". There's a dissertation behind me full of the philosophy of mathematics, and my supervisor's name would be recognisable if you have any interest in the history of mathematics. If you want, I am happy to play big name and big word games, but that doesn't really show anything. I'm not playing academic top trumps - I'm trying to stimulate thought from a bunch of intellectual teenagers. That's never easy, but it's occasionally productive.
All of them pointed out that questions like yours are pointless mental masturbation used by idiots to make themselves feel like they're smart.
Then either the department was awful, or - more likely - you completely misunderstood the message.
Just because you make a false claim about your pointless question being significant, deep, and meaningful doesn't mean that it is
Where did I say it was deep? It's obviously significant and meaningful that everyone has to have faith in their memory. It's prerequisite to everything you do. The fact that it causes so much anger rather than quiet acceptance is kinda interesting.
That's funny, I've seen it rejected at least thirty times, just in this slashdot thread. This means that you not only fail at philosophy, you also fail at reading comprehension - which probably explains why you fail so hard at philosophy.
To reject something, one must show that it is inconsistent. Apart from a couple of instant recognitions of the question and the work that's come from it, all I've read are people providing wrong answers and people telling me the answer doesn't matter. The "wrong answer" set have hope; the "don't care" set are like the jocks who say, "Why do you like math, nerd? Is that going to get you girls, nerd?" and are merely laughable.
When I hear terms like "fail hard" I know I've got a Keyboard Warrior.
He was pointing out an example of an immature person taking an action they know damn well is only going to annoy the people they're acting towards (the kid yelling "citizen's arrest!" in a situation where it isn't appropriate), and saying that it was equivalent to your own actions, which it is.
No, I still don't understand, sorry. What is wrong with a child demanding that the driver stop speeding? To cry "citizen's arrest!" would be a misunderstanding of the law where I live, but the sentiment is perfectly understandable. Maybe you have put yourself in the driver's seat and think that you know better than everyone from society's legal system to the concerned kid in the back - looking it at like that, I can certainly understand why that analogy has been raised.
I saw very little thinking about premises, and very little results from your attempt at socratic teaching. All in all, I rate your attempt a flat zero.
Then you're not reading hard enough. Count the number of experiments people have tried to make up in this thread.
From the feedback I've gotten, I'm pretty sure I'm a better one than you.
I expect you realise the absurdity of that statement, given what it assumes.
The trick is knowing when it is a good answer, and when it is a bad answer.
IME, "Who cares?" is what a child answers when they find a question difficult. It's possible to say "That question is unanswerable because..." or "That question is unimportant because...", but your main focus has been on being angry at someone for asking a question - and that's damn entertaining.
No, I remember that Plato's cave was a nice starting point about this idea in middle school.
Are you going to continue keeping your mouth shut on why, or are you going to explain it to the class and risk revealing your misunderstanding?
Did you read what you quoted? Not sure why you think that it was supposed to answer all questions.
It's a habit of dilettantes to remember something they read and assume it's an answer to the subject at hand.
It's been rejected as the basis of any form of reasoning about the physical world,
How can a question be rejected as a form of reasoning?
Faith in memory is certainly a basis for any form of reasoning about the physical world, if that's what you're worried about.
as well as [discussion] about moral imperatives or the limits of logic.
Such as, say, the problem of induction. Some AC in this thread, evidently with more clue than every other poster combined, immediately identified this early on.
The answers it produces are either trivial, useless or contradictory. For what it's worth - you should be able to tell by now with which philosophers I'm throwing in my lot.
I've already learned that you're one of those people too afraid to present a concrete argument.
As for your incredulity about learning about Plato's cave in middle school, that says more about your education than about my knowledge of philosophy.
Your reading comprehension is just awful. I can only hand hold you so much.
I'm sorry. I thought you were trolling or bored, but I think you're just of limited wit.
Err, OK, used to be a common scenario for me: extended family. ~12 people eating, sharing food from a buffet setup.
We all manage to eat a fair share. There are even leftovers for the fridge.
Initially dividing out onto plates would and does lead to a huge amount of wasted food as each person wants to eat a different amount of a different thing.
- if you're going to post AC to insult people, roman_mir, at least make your sentence style and impotence less obvious.
How do you remember what to write down in them?
How do you remember that you wrote down the results in the lab book you refer to?
I'm sorry but I have no respect for your post at all. It sounds like you are simply guessing about the history of mathematics and philosophy.
Perhaps "reliable" is too likely to be read as "always 100% correct", and I apologise for that.. I didn't want to confuse the basic question, but what you've said is quite true.
You can indeed show that memory is not always reliable.
But you can only do that once you have assumed by faith that memory is at least mostly reliable.
It seems you had faith that you would correctly remember why you were checking my post history.
I hypothesise that you will have to use your memory in order to remember all the above, and again to check each page, and again to recall your results for a conclusion.
You are welcome to try again, but better minds than ours have found no appropriate experiment.
We have faith that we remember the conclusions correctly.
Of course it would not be interesting not to have faith in memory. I don't doubt that.
We use the memories we have faith in to confirm that science works.
What has utility?
You appear to only want questions to which there are clear answers, rather than questions which prompt further thought.
Just to flamebait rational thinkers
No. The intention was to flame the irrational ones who thought that the question is answerable, until reason overtook emotion and allowed them to reconsider their position.
your brain is hardwired to trust your perception and memory unless it's horribly broken.
I'm sorry for your limitation. I'm able to make a conscious choice to make up for the fact that, in reality, memory and perception are often quite unreliable so need reflecting on and compensating for.
How do you know that you have this evidence?
You're begging the question, chump.
Your question isn't intractable. It's sterile. It has the same amount of predictive and analytical power as "Goddidit". It's utterly boring. It leads nowhere.
And yet it's brought out a good 80+ wrong answers and the chance for people to think again about their premises.
I hope for the world's sake that you're no teacher.
Not only that, but the Greeks already knew about it and found it to be an approach that lead nowhere.
Perhaps you're misinterpreting some Greek writing, or misunderstanding the question.
The best - and really only response - I got to this question is "Who cares?"
All questions can be answered like that. Like I said somewhere else in this thread, why aren't we all out playing football on this sunny day?
As for which texts we read in "middle school", Plato's cave analogy was a nice starting point.
OK, so you remember reading about Plato's Cave at school and you think that this answers all the elementary philosophical questions. Well, nope. Plato was obsessed with the idea of an ephemeral world of change and decay as perceived by the senses and felt that his mind's eye could go beyond that and somehow witness the truth. It was a great genesis for mathematics but produced a rather mediocre start to science. And it had fuck all to do with trusting one's memory..
Descartes in High School was a bit more interesting, but he fell flat due to the necessity to use circular reasoning to get anywhere with that approach.
"That approach" being...
it's the attitude of people like you who think they've found some special trick question. You haven't.
In the dozen or so responses I've made in this thread before you posted, I've told people repeatedly that this is a well-known question and that they should think twice before thinking there's a good answer. But you might as well carry on a roll of historical ignorance with some contemporary. ignorance.
You're merely regurgitating a 2000 year old discussion that was rejected pretty much immediately.
Nope. The question has not been "rejected" ever, just deemed unanswerable. But it's formed part of "sterile debate" on the power and limitations of philosophical induction per Hume, leading to Popper's falsifiability, and all the other Philosophy 101 names you could have dropped if you hadn't engaged bullshit mode.
You're like a 9 year old who yells citizen's arrest! every time he sees his parents speeding. It merely betrays your own shallowness and lack of understanding.
I'm not sure what speeding being a summary offence (E+W) has to do with this discussion, but OK.
And what's with the quotes. Did you do the appropriate air quotes with your fingers as well?
I thought air quotes were an illustration of incredulity. But your nick was just as middle-school as your argument. Not that it matters - you'd have been equally wrong without the silly name.
My dear friend, all I argued was that memory - hence science, which uses memory - requires faith.
Who here said that memory is an illusion? That was just you and a bunch of other dorks trying to read between the lines.
Celebrate the faith you need to do science, I say!
Feel free to imagine me away and see whether it works.
Give us some detail.
This question has been tackled at length, and I know there is no answer. It's just fascinating to watch so many dilettantes think they have an answer.