Why do you believe it, before it has been shown to your face?
I don't. I accept it as "plausible", and let them prove themselves right or wrong.
There should be NO shame in Princton or anyone else indulging in a little quackery. So long as its a negligible cost (six random number generators? Negligible) and the methedology isn't compromised, there is the possiblity to test what we think rather well.
Randi's holding the money, Randi's the one setting the requirements, so Randi's the one with quite a marked reason not to let anything go.
It's like saying that the odds at a Las Vegas casino aren't set to let folks make a profit off of them, because the casino owner has a reason to do so. Or that a startup company's venture capitalist may not be the best analyist of said company.
Plausible: Without obvious logical error. A statement that correctly follows certain facts, and has no signfiicant errors so long as those facts are true.
I didn't use the word "possible" because we only have one reality. Either this box is predicting current and future events, or it isn't; science is the trick of figuring out if it is or not.
Seriously though, every single day somewhere something "amazing" happens and I don't see the black box picking up that. What about the day George Bush was re-elected? Or the day Saddam Hussein was found? Or the day I finally figured out how to make good macaroni and cheese?
None of those events were surprising, alarming, or at all unexpected.
So the numbers shot up a few hours before the events happen. What if they shot up a few days before? A few months before?
The implication is that the numbers stay essentially equal for most of the time, and only shoot up when there's a strong correlative event -- something that a lot of people are thinking about very strongly.
It is fairly interesting--worth, if nothing else, checking back with next time something significant happens.
So he really has no reason to care whether or not the fund is given out, in a monetary sense.
The fund may as well be his personal checking account.
If you Read the challenge, you can see that every instance is "by James Randi", not "the JREF institute" or some other dispersonal body.
If the "debunking psychics" busness stops being profitable to Randi, he can just take his million dollars (plus whatever else he may have) and go into some other business. To say nothing of the 10,000 from his own account he must put up upon any demonstration.
"Knowing" that 19 guys are going to hijack planes, however, isn't really something that should make "random" number generators generate sequences any differently.
And yet, it happened.
The article's theory seems to be that, at first, they thought they were just seeing a wide-scale ability of humanity to affect random numbers (something that's apparantly very replicable). And then 9/11 hit, and they saw the spike they were used too--four hours ahead of time. And then the same thing happened with the Tsunami a few weeks ago.
While it's entirely plausible that this is a fluke, it's also plausible that it isn't. And if isn't, that doesn't mean that we're all locked into deterministic reality; you can't predict where a bullet is going until it's fired, and most other rational explanations of "psychic" phenomina have a simliar reconcilliation.
Of course, it'll be interesting when this story can move from "plasuble" to "true" or "not true."
As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.
He won't. He'll lead the democrats into being a viable and strong non-Republican major party. Which, i'm sure you'll agree, will keep the Republicans honest and ensure that if they do stay in power, they're there with the will of the people.
And if they did that, then the Republicans could reincarnate Hitler and get the vast Christian majority of this country to vote him in on "moral issues."
Kerry ran and was fairly open about wanting tolerance -- and he lost to a President with the lowest par-approval rating EVER.
Gay rights are not a core Democratic platform. Every democratic presidentcal candidate EVER has been against Gay marriage. At the most expansionist, they're in favor of it being up to the states.
(Gay rights are included within a few other party ideals, but they're hardly a major issue.)
Apple Newton? Am I missing a feature, other than age, that makes these different?
The Newton wasn't a macintosh PC. The Tablet PC runs a full version of MS Windows, and is just a keyboard short of being a laptop.
Heck no! X-Box Live might be a better example, perhaps, but fucking console game systems were around a long time before the X-Box.
Not with a hard drive, and not with the same core as a commerical PC. Before X-Box, there wasn't a clear PC-to-console component grab.
Disagree. This functionality exists in the original wheelmouse. This is marketing, not innovation.
Have you got a link?
The wheels are actually pushed to the left or right, not clicked and dragged to the left or right. While I'm not discounting the possibility, it is a new hardware change.
Disagree. Adobe offered this feature in the early 90's and I hated it then, too;)
Got a link?
FWIW, I like the task pane. It's a heck of a lot better for the thesaurs, style menu, or clipboard than independant windows.
These are an innovation only in that they apply an older technology, which we once called code-completion, to word processing.
Code-completion that I've seen doesn't tag extant code with suggestions, nor does it show where automatically formatted code can be changed back.
They're simliar, but different. Which is why the word is "innovative", not "inventive."
We're genetically predisposed to tribalism. Our religion and societies have worked against that.
Methinks that we're genetically predisposed to organized religion and stratisfied societies, too. If we weren't, they wouldn't really have taken over, now would they?
When was the last time they released anything truly innovative? Word 5 for Mac?
Tablet PC.
X-box.
Wheel scroll mice.
Side-scrolling wheel mice.
Microsoft Natural Keyboard.
The "windows" keys.
Clippy. (You said "innovative", not "good.")
Task Pane from Office XP.
Smart Tags.
Oh, and let's not forget their IE extensions.
Also...
In IT dying means that you're not leading
Not since the bubble burst it doesn't. Dying means that you're not leading AND you're losing money. MS is too big to lead just about anywhere, but they, like Apple, are able to turn an overall profit.
1) because it will be a taxation issue, not a safty issue. Every installation of traffic light camers has led to a reduction of yello light time. specifically so they could issue more tickets.
So? It's a taxaction issue NOW, but since it's an unfair one we don't run into it that often.
2) You are now in a position where you must continually prove your [innocence]. this is bad.
Not if you, you know, OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT!
The exact same system of GPS that traps speeders guarantees that you aren't wrongly accused.
You give a certificate to say the your car meets emmision standards, and that is all.
Wrong. The stickers around here are a seat belt, horn, motor, presense of Cat, and general body condition (no major faults) certification. Down by The City, they're all that AND emissions.
Don't know what redneck spot you live in, but having your car inspected for safety is hardly an onerous burden.
mp3 does not equal copyright infringment. I have mp3s of my children, does this mean when ever I share them I have to explain myself?
Yes. Mp3 traded on a P2P system DOES imply copyright infringement. Just like a twenty-inch water pipe implies marijuana use.
Furthermore: we should put a GPS tag on all cars that'll report you if you go over the speed limit
Why not? There's hardly an expectation of privacy, and hard-enforced speed limits would force the populace and the government to come to a real agreement on speeding.
. Oh, and we'll need to inspect it twice a year for illegal modifications to your ride.
Twice is a bit much. How about once? (looks out window, sees annual inspection stickers on EVERY car.)
BTW, the cops'll be around next Tuesday to check your house for illegal cable.
Here, we have an expectation of privacy. OTOH, if the cable guy wants to come over and check his wiring, he's more than welcome to. He could even ask the cops to do so, checking the wiring on the OUTSIDE of my house.
And here, you need to install this program to check for illegal MP3s or movies on your computer.
Wouldn't work. Better to just install sniffers on the ISPs that checks for that kind of traffic. An immediate "explain this activity or we shut you off" message would keep everyone straight. Or they'd just go to a different service.
And you'll be registering all your guns once a year so the government can keep track of where they are...
Damn straight. While tyrany can only be answered by revolution, revolution is still war, and it can be easily avoided if the populace is not only very well armed, but the government knows exactly how armed its population is.
Taxing those guns, hell no. Paying for the inspection, hell no. But telling the government that you do in fact own twenty rifles and help train your friends in civil insurgency? Sure. It'll keep them honest.
have a human examine it and recognize that the written amount of the check was a tenth of the amount indicated by the MICR.
A, single, human did examine it. Very quickly, in a data processing center where you processed the check, and where an error is easy to crop in.
Checks are typically hand-written, and you can't reliably OCR handwriting on the scale of check processing.
I expected them to bounce the check... I did not expect them to program their computer to grab the money from my other bank accounts, and worse, not notify me that they had raided another account.
So, you expected your bank to cause you to commit a federal crime rather than simply apply the debit against other funds they hold in your name?
You should have simply looked into it. It's common sense that if I owe you $100, and I you're short on contributing money towards our $50 order of pizza, I'll just take your share from the $100 you owe me. Why would you think the bank would do any different?
I no longer do business with Bank of America. They let their computers make all the decisions. It was only when I complained that humans got involved.
Presume that there are no computers.
Bank of America, upon reciving a check order on their hand-written "drafts out" list, would process it and debit the funds from your assocated accounts in accordance with their standard policy. Until you complained, they would just do this -- because it's what the tellers and pencil-pushers were required to do, by law and contract and policy.
Computers do simple automated tasks easily, and drawing money from an account is a simple automated task.
If you're bitching because your bank used computers to run the math and apply numbers in a given situation -- the very thing they were desinged for! -- then you're on the wrong website.
If the answers are "done" and "Yes", look me up in a few months in between the "soliciing the establishment" and "morgatging your house to vanity press" stages. I've got an idea (and a book of my own) that may make everyone some money.
Windows has 90% of the market share because they were the first real cheap interoperable system, and they retained their price niche for decades.
Usability simply doesn't enter into it. They flooded the mass, so they set the standard. (Which means that, in order to beat windows, you either need to be cheaper to offset complexity, or simpler to offset price.)
I thought that scientific inquiry is "We don't know what to expect. Let's probe and collect the scientifically provable facts. Then, we draw a conclusion from the facts."
Nope.
Scientific inquiry is "this is what we think. Test it and see if we're wrong or not."
If every inquiry had to start from scratch, we wouldn't be anywhere.
Oh, and re: Jesus -- there is at least one piece of non-christian evidence that the man did in fact exist. You can argue that is life was exaggerated, but arguing that the man didn't live at all is about as effective as arguing about the existance of any non-Emperor at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you believe it, before it has been shown to your face?
I don't. I accept it as "plausible", and let them prove themselves right or wrong.
There should be NO shame in Princton or anyone else indulging in a little quackery. So long as its a negligible cost (six random number generators? Negligible) and the methedology isn't compromised, there is the possiblity to test what we think rather well.
That's not what I said.
Randi's holding the money, Randi's the one setting the requirements, so Randi's the one with quite a marked reason not to let anything go.
It's like saying that the odds at a Las Vegas casino aren't set to let folks make a profit off of them, because the casino owner has a reason to do so. Or that a startup company's venture capitalist may not be the best analyist of said company.
Plausible: Without obvious logical error. A statement that correctly follows certain facts, and has no signfiicant errors so long as those facts are true.
I didn't use the word "possible" because we only have one reality. Either this box is predicting current and future events, or it isn't; science is the trick of figuring out if it is or not.
Seriously though, every single day somewhere something "amazing" happens and I don't see the black box picking up that. What about the day George Bush was re-elected? Or the day Saddam Hussein was found? Or the day I finally figured out how to make good macaroni and cheese?
None of those events were surprising, alarming, or at all unexpected.
So the numbers shot up a few hours before the events happen. What if they shot up a few days before? A few months before?
The implication is that the numbers stay essentially equal for most of the time, and only shoot up when there's a strong correlative event -- something that a lot of people are thinking about very strongly.
It is fairly interesting--worth, if nothing else, checking back with next time something significant happens.
So he really has no reason to care whether or not the fund is given out, in a monetary sense.
The fund may as well be his personal checking account.
If you Read the challenge, you can see that every instance is "by James Randi", not "the JREF institute" or some other dispersonal body.
If the "debunking psychics" busness stops being profitable to Randi, he can just take his million dollars (plus whatever else he may have) and go into some other business. To say nothing of the 10,000 from his own account he must put up upon any demonstration.
"Knowing" that 19 guys are going to hijack planes, however, isn't really something that should make "random" number generators generate sequences any differently.
And yet, it happened.
The article's theory seems to be that, at first, they thought they were just seeing a wide-scale ability of humanity to affect random numbers (something that's apparantly very replicable). And then 9/11 hit, and they saw the spike they were used too--four hours ahead of time. And then the same thing happened with the Tsunami a few weeks ago.
While it's entirely plausible that this is a fluke, it's also plausible that it isn't. And if isn't, that doesn't mean that we're all locked into deterministic reality; you can't predict where a bullet is going until it's fired, and most other rational explanations of "psychic" phenomina have a simliar reconcilliation.
Of course, it'll be interesting when this story can move from "plasuble" to "true" or "not true."
Believing in superstitious quackery like this black box has serious ramifications.
Perhaps you've heard of the scientific method?
It sounds like quakery, but so did flight and travel to the moon 150 years ago.
The appropriate stance is "I'll believe it when they prove it", not "that can't be true." Rabid atheism is no more scientific than wicca.
I doubt they'll be collecting it.
Randi has a million dollar reason to debunk anyone who claims to have prescient abilities. Tell me again what makes him an honest source?
but when was he ever "open about wanting tolerance"?
Watch the debates?
Right then and there.
As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.
He won't. He'll lead the democrats into being a viable and strong non-Republican major party. Which, i'm sure you'll agree, will keep the Republicans honest and ensure that if they do stay in power, they're there with the will of the people.
And if they did that, then the Republicans could reincarnate Hitler and get the vast Christian majority of this country to vote him in on "moral issues."
Kerry ran and was fairly open about wanting tolerance -- and he lost to a President with the lowest par-approval rating EVER.
Psst...
Gay rights are not a core Democratic platform. Every democratic presidentcal candidate EVER has been against Gay marriage. At the most expansionist, they're in favor of it being up to the states.
(Gay rights are included within a few other party ideals, but they're hardly a major issue.)
The Windows keys are just modifier keys for running commands, similar to meta, Apple or Amiga keys.
Hitting the Apple keys by themselves doesn't do a thing.
Both windows keys have a default behavior, that executes when they're touched.
Apple Newton? Am I missing a feature, other than age, that makes these different?
;)
The Newton wasn't a macintosh PC. The Tablet PC runs a full version of MS Windows, and is just a keyboard short of being a laptop.
Heck no! X-Box Live might be a better example, perhaps, but fucking console game systems were around a long time before the X-Box.
Not with a hard drive, and not with the same core as a commerical PC. Before X-Box, there wasn't a clear PC-to-console component grab.
Disagree. This functionality exists in the original wheelmouse. This is marketing, not innovation.
Have you got a link?
The wheels are actually pushed to the left or right, not clicked and dragged to the left or right. While I'm not discounting the possibility, it is a new hardware change.
Disagree. Adobe offered this feature in the early 90's and I hated it then, too
Got a link?
FWIW, I like the task pane. It's a heck of a lot better for the thesaurs, style menu, or clipboard than independant windows.
These are an innovation only in that they apply an older technology, which we once called code-completion, to word processing.
Code-completion that I've seen doesn't tag extant code with suggestions, nor does it show where automatically formatted code can be changed back.
They're simliar, but different. Which is why the word is "innovative", not "inventive."
We're genetically predisposed to tribalism. Our religion and societies have worked against that.
Methinks that we're genetically predisposed to organized religion and stratisfied societies, too. If we weren't, they wouldn't really have taken over, now would they?
When was the last time they released anything truly innovative? Word 5 for Mac?
Tablet PC.
X-box.
Wheel scroll mice.
Side-scrolling wheel mice.
Microsoft Natural Keyboard.
The "windows" keys.
Clippy. (You said "innovative", not "good.")
Task Pane from Office XP.
Smart Tags.
Oh, and let's not forget their IE extensions.
Also...
In IT dying means that you're not leading
Not since the bubble burst it doesn't. Dying means that you're not leading AND you're losing money. MS is too big to lead just about anywhere, but they, like Apple, are able to turn an overall profit.
1) because it will be a taxation issue, not a safty issue. Every installation of traffic light camers has led to a reduction of yello light time. specifically so they could issue more tickets.
So? It's a taxaction issue NOW, but since it's an unfair one we don't run into it that often.
2) You are now in a position where you must continually prove your [innocence]. this is bad.
Not if you, you know, OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT!
The exact same system of GPS that traps speeders guarantees that you aren't wrongly accused.
You give a certificate to say the your car meets emmision standards, and that is all.
Wrong. The stickers around here are a seat belt, horn, motor, presense of Cat, and general body condition (no major faults) certification. Down by The City, they're all that AND emissions.
Don't know what redneck spot you live in, but having your car inspected for safety is hardly an onerous burden.
mp3 does not equal copyright infringment. I have mp3s of my children, does this mean when ever I share them I have to explain myself?
Yes. Mp3 traded on a P2P system DOES imply copyright infringement. Just like a twenty-inch water pipe implies marijuana use.
Furthermore: we should put a GPS tag on all cars that'll report you if you go over the speed limit
Why not? There's hardly an expectation of privacy, and hard-enforced speed limits would force the populace and the government to come to a real agreement on speeding.
. Oh, and we'll need to inspect it twice a year for illegal modifications to your ride.
Twice is a bit much. How about once? (looks out window, sees annual inspection stickers on EVERY car.)
BTW, the cops'll be around next Tuesday to check your house for illegal cable.
Here, we have an expectation of privacy. OTOH, if the cable guy wants to come over and check his wiring, he's more than welcome to. He could even ask the cops to do so, checking the wiring on the OUTSIDE of my house.
And here, you need to install this program to check for illegal MP3s or movies on your computer.
Wouldn't work. Better to just install sniffers on the ISPs that checks for that kind of traffic. An immediate "explain this activity or we shut you off" message would keep everyone straight. Or they'd just go to a different service.
And you'll be registering all your guns once a year so the government can keep track of where they are...
Damn straight. While tyrany can only be answered by revolution, revolution is still war, and it can be easily avoided if the populace is not only very well armed, but the government knows exactly how armed its population is.
Taxing those guns, hell no. Paying for the inspection, hell no. But telling the government that you do in fact own twenty rifles and help train your friends in civil insurgency? Sure. It'll keep them honest.
have a human examine it and recognize that the written amount of the check was a tenth of the amount indicated by the MICR.
... I did not expect them to program their computer to grab the money from my other bank accounts, and worse, not notify me that they had raided another account.
A, single, human did examine it. Very quickly, in a data processing center where you processed the check, and where an error is easy to crop in.
Checks are typically hand-written, and you can't reliably OCR handwriting on the scale of check processing.
I expected them to bounce the check
So, you expected your bank to cause you to commit a federal crime rather than simply apply the debit against other funds they hold in your name?
You should have simply looked into it. It's common sense that if I owe you $100, and I you're short on contributing money towards our $50 order of pizza, I'll just take your share from the $100 you owe me. Why would you think the bank would do any different?
(And did you even look at your bank statement?)
I no longer do business with Bank of America. They let their computers make all the decisions. It was only when I complained that humans got involved.
Presume that there are no computers.
Bank of America, upon reciving a check order on their hand-written "drafts out" list, would process it and debit the funds from your assocated accounts in accordance with their standard policy. Until you complained, they would just do this -- because it's what the tellers and pencil-pushers were required to do, by law and contract and policy.
Computers do simple automated tasks easily, and drawing money from an account is a simple automated task.
If you're bitching because your bank used computers to run the math and apply numbers in a given situation -- the very thing they were desinged for! -- then you're on the wrong website.
Try luddites.org.
1: How far is she along?
2: Are either you or her OSS buffs?
If the answers are "done" and "Yes", look me up in a few months in between the "soliciing the establishment" and "morgatging your house to vanity press" stages. I've got an idea (and a book of my own) that may make everyone some money.
Not just the address book. Actual e-mail sync with the palm, using Thunderbird, Windows, and Eudora.
I've successfully gotten Eudora for Palm (free) to sync with Thunderbird without too much hassle.
It requires a little bit of legwork, but it's quite doable. Had I a longer commute, I might start doing it again.
If Windows has 90% of the market share...
Windows has 90% of the market share because they were the first real cheap interoperable system, and they retained their price niche for decades.
Usability simply doesn't enter into it. They flooded the mass, so they set the standard. (Which means that, in order to beat windows, you either need to be cheaper to offset complexity, or simpler to offset price.)
I thought that scientific inquiry is "We don't know what to expect. Let's probe and collect the scientifically provable facts. Then, we draw a conclusion from the facts."
Nope.
Scientific inquiry is "this is what we think. Test it and see if we're wrong or not."
If every inquiry had to start from scratch, we wouldn't be anywhere.
Oh, and re: Jesus -- there is at least one piece of non-christian evidence that the man did in fact exist. You can argue that is life was exaggerated, but arguing that the man didn't live at all is about as effective as arguing about the existance of any non-Emperor at the same time.