I agree chances are good that there is life, maybe even life that we could recognize as intelligent, somewhere else in the universe. But what are the odds that we will ever cross paths?
Someone told me recently that nuclear engines are being developed that could make the trip to Mars in six weeks (or something). After a quick calculation I pointed out to him that at that speed we could make Alpha Centauri (the closest star system) in... 80,000 years! Now that's progress that counts.
There is also relativistic travel. If you continually accelerate at 1G, you could in theory cross the galaxy (~100,000ly) in a few decades. Of course, when you get back to Earth, ~100,000 years will have passed. And also, since you are travelling at close to light speed, you won't really see anything. You can only slow down to inspect a planet a few times if you want to return to Earth in your lifetime, and it will require planning far ahead, which is a problem since you will have no idea where there will be life. (Unless SETI delivers, that is.)
So it may be a comforting thought that we are not alone in the universe, but maybe we don't need to put the intergalactic diplomacy initiative on this year's budget.
I think one of the fastest-growing and most used information access point outside the Google search engine is Wikipedia. It is starting to get truly remarkable as an alternative to searching the whole web for answers, and at least as credible. If Google tries to lay its hands on it, then I'd say the writing is on the wall and I'm joining the anti-Google militia.
I think the most realistic solution to this problem is not a super-intelligent search engine that can understand text more or less like a human, but spells Wikipedia...
Hmm was this the first valid and correct reference to Occams razor on Slashdot ever?
Probably not...
Occams razor = intended for scientific theories (given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler)
Occam never formulated any principle like the modern "Occam's Razor," it was invented by later people. What Occam said was that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily, which does not mean that "a simpler theory" is better. At all. So, sure, Occam was religious , but Occam also did not use Occam's Razor as we now understand it.
The popular explanation of the razor that you give above is also wrong; no one believes that a theory becomes better just because it's simpler. If so, then "God did it" would seem to be the simplest explanation for everything. (And also "Santa did it," of course.) The razor states that you should not introduce unnecessary entities. If you can explain a phenomena using only observables, don't introduce redundant theoretical entities. Such an entity could be God, if we for example talk about biological evolution. As you say, the razor is a scientific prinicple, and the question how life developed on this planet is a scientific question. Yet some people try to drag God into it. Enter the razor.
A funny anecdote from the history of science: Galileo rejected Kepler's explanation of the tide, saying that references to invisible forces originating with the moon, that acted at a distance (that is, gravity) was occultist nonsense. Sometimes those non-observable, theoretical entities are necessary.
Ubuntu froze during the disk partitioning program on my PIII 700MHz, 64MB Thinkpad. SuSE spelled it right out, "You have too little memory to run the installation program, please activate a swap partition." (Sure, if you would just let me run fdisk!) Slackware installs and runs without a hitch. Slack matters to me.
At least that's what they've been claiming. They do this once a year or so, so please move along. Nothing to see here.
Microsoft knows their monopoly status is a consequence of them owning the Office formats, not the Windows code, so they will not be open in any meaningful sense anytime soon.
...will we still love them? I get a feeling Microsoft's monopoly will look like a minor bother compared to Google's omnipresence one day. Google, the Evil Empire?
Just as a comparison, this is how these movies rank at Rottentomatoes.com, which relies on professional movie revies:
1. Alien - 100% (44 reviews) 2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - 100% (25 reviews) 3. Star Wars V-The Empire Strikes Back - 98% (49 reviews) 4. Apollo 13 - 97% (37 reviews) 5. 2001-A Space Odyssey - 94% (36 reviews) 6. Star Trek: First Contact - 94% (32 reviews) 7. Star Wars IV-A New Hope - 93% (44 reviews) 8. Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi - 81% (43 reviews) 9. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - 79% (33 reviews) 10. Contact - 76% (29 reviews)
Although the idea that The Wrath of Khan is better than 2001 is amusing to say the least, I still like this list better because it confirms Alien as the masterpiece it is and relegates Contact to the bottom of the list where it belongs (if it belong on the list at all).
I had to install some Linux dist on an old laptop with a 700MHz PIII and 64MB of RAM recently. Ubuntu froze at 52% when starting the disk partition program. (End of review.) SuSE, my old favorite, said I had too little memory to run the installation program. (WTF?) I went back to my first dist, Slackware, and discovered to my infinite delight that absolutely nothing has happened to its installation program the last 10 years.:-) It runs like clockwork, and apparently it should run on a 486 with 4MB of RAM as well. _That's_ Linux.
The rating of the above post answers the question in the OP. It's sad that Americans, especially after the Bush administration came to power and the 9/11 attacks increasingly lives in a reality bubble of their own. Behe not refuted? Try Google. Actual scientists generally don't waste their time on lame arguments such as "irreducible complexity" because it's not a real issue, it's layman stuff, like all of ID. They are busy with actual scientific problems that need solving.
...that once you have served your time you are again a citizen. So why is it more upsetting that criminals are released early than that citizens are kept locked up in prison? I think that is at least as problematic.
So this is supposed to be a statement against stereotypes, but instead of learning how to knit, manly Mark Newport "outsourced" the actual work to his mother's knitting club, which I'm sure is not a manifestation of old traditional gender roles... Stupid.
What you fail to realize is that 1/6th of the probability is consumed by the Feyerabend Principle that balances out Bell's Theorem, that would otherwise lead to a probability surplus in the universe.
Well, the answer is the one I gave you, as you can look up on any relevant website. If you need help to internalize the theory behind it, I'm afraid I'm not your guy. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree chances are good that there is life, maybe even life that we could recognize as intelligent, somewhere else in the universe. But what are the odds that we will ever cross paths?
Someone told me recently that nuclear engines are being developed that could make the trip to Mars in six weeks (or something). After a quick calculation I pointed out to him that at that speed we could make Alpha Centauri (the closest star system) in... 80,000 years! Now that's progress that counts.
There is also relativistic travel. If you continually accelerate at 1G, you could in theory cross the galaxy (~100,000ly) in a few decades. Of course, when you get back to Earth, ~100,000 years will have passed. And also, since you are travelling at close to light speed, you won't really see anything. You can only slow down to inspect a planet a few times if you want to return to Earth in your lifetime, and it will require planning far ahead, which is a problem since you will have no idea where there will be life. (Unless SETI delivers, that is.)
So it may be a comforting thought that we are not alone in the universe, but maybe we don't need to put the intergalactic diplomacy initiative on this year's budget.
I think one of the fastest-growing and most used information access point outside the Google search engine is Wikipedia. It is starting to get truly remarkable as an alternative to searching the whole web for answers, and at least as credible. If Google tries to lay its hands on it, then I'd say the writing is on the wall and I'm joining the anti-Google militia.
I think the most realistic solution to this problem is not a super-intelligent search engine that can understand text more or less like a human, but spells Wikipedia...
IANAP but I am a chemist who suffers from physics envy (as Niles Eldredge put it)...
Don't feel bad, almost everyone has suffered from physics envy the past 100 years, not least my philosophy colleagues.
Exactly, if he'd been the least smart he'd added an indexed array or something.
Hmm was this the first valid and correct reference to Occams razor on Slashdot ever?
Probably not...
Occams razor = intended for scientific theories (given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler)
Occam never formulated any principle like the modern "Occam's Razor," it was invented by later people. What Occam said was that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily, which does not mean that "a simpler theory" is better. At all. So, sure, Occam was religious , but Occam also did not use Occam's Razor as we now understand it.
The popular explanation of the razor that you give above is also wrong; no one believes that a theory becomes better just because it's simpler. If so, then "God did it" would seem to be the simplest explanation for everything. (And also "Santa did it," of course.) The razor states that you should not introduce unnecessary entities. If you can explain a phenomena using only observables, don't introduce redundant theoretical entities. Such an entity could be God, if we for example talk about biological evolution. As you say, the razor is a scientific prinicple, and the question how life developed on this planet is a scientific question. Yet some people try to drag God into it. Enter the razor.
A funny anecdote from the history of science: Galileo rejected Kepler's explanation of the tide, saying that references to invisible forces originating with the moon, that acted at a distance (that is, gravity) was occultist nonsense. Sometimes those non-observable, theoretical entities are necessary.
No, but it means it's better than all the ones that don't run at all.
Ubuntu froze during the disk partitioning program on my PIII 700MHz, 64MB Thinkpad. SuSE spelled it right out, "You have too little memory to run the installation program, please activate a swap partition." (Sure, if you would just let me run fdisk!) Slackware installs and runs without a hitch. Slack matters to me.
At least that's what they've been claiming. They do this once a year or so, so please move along. Nothing to see here.
Microsoft knows their monopoly status is a consequence of them owning the Office formats, not the Windows code, so they will not be open in any meaningful sense anytime soon.
...will we still love them? I get a feeling Microsoft's monopoly will look like a minor bother compared to Google's omnipresence one day. Google, the Evil Empire?
Anti-Internet is cooler! All bow to Zhang Chunliang, the advocate of anti-Internet addiction!
The Stockholm subway has had this for years. :-)
Where are the Fobin Projects, the Brainstorms, The Fly?
Probably in some list that isn't about space movies!
Just as a comparison, this is how these movies rank at Rottentomatoes.com, which relies on professional movie revies:
1. Alien - 100% (44 reviews)
2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - 100% (25 reviews)
3. Star Wars V-The Empire Strikes Back - 98% (49 reviews)
4. Apollo 13 - 97% (37 reviews)
5. 2001-A Space Odyssey - 94% (36 reviews)
6. Star Trek: First Contact - 94% (32 reviews)
7. Star Wars IV-A New Hope - 93% (44 reviews)
8. Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi - 81% (43 reviews)
9. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - 79% (33 reviews)
10. Contact - 76% (29 reviews)
Although the idea that The Wrath of Khan is better than 2001 is amusing to say the least, I still like this list better because it confirms Alien as the masterpiece it is and relegates Contact to the bottom of the list where it belongs (if it belong on the list at all).
Sorry, I didn't understand "seckzy" first time off, my l33t 5p34k isn't what it's been. I guess you did mean risque. ;-)
I think you mean too risky, although Risque Linux sounds like a cool dist aimed at pr0n surfers running on Alpha. :-D
I had to install some Linux dist on an old laptop with a 700MHz PIII and 64MB of RAM recently. Ubuntu froze at 52% when starting the disk partition program. (End of review.) SuSE, my old favorite, said I had too little memory to run the installation program. (WTF?) I went back to my first dist, Slackware, and discovered to my infinite delight that absolutely nothing has happened to its installation program the last 10 years. :-) It runs like clockwork, and apparently it should run on a 486 with 4MB of RAM as well. _That's_ Linux.
The rating of the above post answers the question in the OP. It's sad that Americans, especially after the Bush administration came to power and the 9/11 attacks increasingly lives in a reality bubble of their own. Behe not refuted? Try Google. Actual scientists generally don't waste their time on lame arguments such as "irreducible complexity" because it's not a real issue, it's layman stuff, like all of ID. They are busy with actual scientific problems that need solving.
...that once you have served your time you are again a citizen. So why is it more upsetting that criminals are released early than that citizens are kept locked up in prison? I think that is at least as problematic.
So this is supposed to be a statement against stereotypes, but instead of learning how to knit, manly Mark Newport "outsourced" the actual work to his mother's knitting club, which I'm sure is not a manifestation of old traditional gender roles... Stupid.
What you fail to realize is that 1/6th of the probability is consumed by the Feyerabend Principle that balances out Bell's Theorem, that would otherwise lead to a probability surplus in the universe.
t ml
Okay, you're right. Here's a good page:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.monty.hall.h
Well, the answer is the one I gave you, as you can look up on any relevant website. If you need help to internalize the theory behind it, I'm afraid I'm not your guy. Good luck.
You can't add the probabilities. They change when the guy opens the door.
Um, what is the question?
Always switch. There is a 1/3 chance your first choice is right and a 1/2 chance the remaining door is right.