Does Facebook have the responsibility of ensuring we are only exposed to "real" news? No. You can blame them for providing tools that make it easier to spread fake news, but that's what printing presses were a few hundred years ago. No, it is YOUR responsibility to think critically about the things you read (and share). The big problem really is that the schools have not been able to teach enough of you to do so.
Actually, not quite. For the analogy to work, each half of the coin is equally heads and tails until the measurement. Only the entanglement itself (i.e. that one is opposite the other) was encoded in the envelope to begin with.
We might need another analogy. Consider Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as entangled particles guaranteed to hold opposite views on any given topic. With Hillary in New York and Donald in Los Angeles, ask Donald a question about one of the few things he has no opinion on. Until you ask, nobody (including Donald and Hillary) can know what his answer will be. But as soon as you ask and he answers, we Know what Hillary thinks about the subject as well.
Now, at this point, Donald and Hillary have taken Stands on the issue. Before the question was asked, each of them equally supported and opposed the issue. Once the question was asked, one fully supported and the other fully opposed the issue. If you then manage to convince Donald to change his mind, your efforts destroy the entanglement, so it will not change Hillary's opinion.
Who said anything about destroying energy? If you want to do something, you take energy from one place (i.e. the chemical potential energy of propane molecules) and put it somewhere else. The "somewhere else" always involves some increased thermal energy of the surroundings, and often also involves actually doing something, like making your forklift go (increased kinetic energy), lifting a pallet (increased potential energy), or in this case, moving electrons around. It is in fact the very conservation of energy that you implicitly invoke that blows your argument out of the water: energy is neither destroyed NOR CREATED. You take 1 J of energy from the power company and move some electrons around, you don't have a whole J of energy to put into heating the room.
Actually, you don't do so well in thermodynamics either:) Your conservation of energy bit is fine, but energy is heat + work. So your argument only holds if no work was done. Computation requires moving charge through potential differences, which is electrical work.
Why should lower CEO pay even be a goal? Jealousy? Hatred of success? They work harder for their pay than lottery winners, sports stars, or movie stars.
Lottery winners? Yes. Sports stars? Not so sure. Movie stars? I highly doubt it.
The goal should be to increase efficiency of production of goods and services over time. "Making the pie bigger" entirely dominates "how the pie is divided" over time.
So you think endless growth is the sustainable answer?
Almost everyone in America has a higher standard of living than a medieval king, and certainly better health care. Damn, I'll take being a modern wage slave over a medieval king just for dentistry alone!
Yes. America's health care is certainly a cut above medieval. Modern? No. But better than medieval.
Ok, I'm done now. Wow... it feels good to stop....
I assumed originally that you were one of the less scientifically literate types swayed by sensationalist reporting. But now you report that you are yourself a scientist....? In the light of sweeping statements like
Now the only projects that get funded are the ones supporting a particular line of reasoning. Experiments are done without controls, and ad hoc hypotheses created to explain anomalies in the data. Politicians actively suppress researchers who suggest things that contradict doctrine.
I then assumed you were a young firebrand recently disillusioned by your first encounter with worldly imperfection.
But... you are perhaps older than me? Though I doubt that, your statement still implies my second assumption is incorrect.
Can you seriously say that you have examined all branches of the sciences, and that all science is a minefield of deceit? You should set an example here: what percentage of the sciences have you studied, and how much of that turned out to be unduly influenced? What is the statistical significance of your study? Otherwise you are merely contributing to the noise that fuels the growing blaze of ignorance.
disclaimer: I, too, am a scientist. Take my words with a grain of salt.
The peer review process, which has been around quite some time, works to prevent exactly the problems you claim exist with science today. Many peer-reviewed results later turn out to be incorrect - science does not follow a straight path to some mythical "truth" - but for the most part, papers which are peer reviewed are much more likely to be reporting work carried out in accordance with accepted scientific practice.
The reason most people don't trust scientists is because, being scientifically illiterate themselves, they rely on the media to digest science for them. Stories of corrupted science and wild claims sell much better than the dull, careful, incremental progress most scientists make, leading to a popular perception of minefields of deceit or moats of lies.
Ever try a Domino's Thin Crust with Double Bacon? One of my friends in college got two of those once and, after the puking up the first one, left the second on his desk. The next day, he found the grease soaked through the pizza, its own box, the lid of the box under it, and the bottom of the box under it, sticking it solidly to the table.
The cornucopia of confusion evidenced above could easily be resolved by using the US definition of a country: that date when the First Settlers, having arrived at an unoccupied land (or having exterminated enough of the indigenous people to make it essentially unoccupied), spit in the face of the country that supported their colonization efforts and mount a PR campaign in the form of a document proclaiming themselves to be upholders of the most basic human rights.
At 5 years of daily driving, I'm 110% positive its overdue for a change. You're also implying you get AT LEAST 175 miles out of every single charge to get anywhere near that life time, something else I don't buy. (I'm ignoring any reality of what you have and basing these numbers on the ideal numbers on the ideal batteries, of which I would bet a couple pay checks on your car not having as those would cost several times more than your entire car)
Of course, I know something about batteries, charge cycles, and how the chemical reactions over time cause permanent changes that no amount of silly stories you make up will change.
No matter what you read, your car does not have a battery that lasts as long as you claim it does. Fucking nasa doesnt' even have batteries that perform at the level you're claiming. Sorry. You can make up some shit and point me at web pages all you want, but its still not going to make it true.
So where does my 2004 Prius with 175000 miles, still using its original battery, fit into your world?
So the only exposure we had was a programmable calculator in physics class. We had to write a program to solve a quadratic equation. "No, it can't solve for imaginary roots." First of many challenges...
I have been using linux since RedHat 4.1. Finding a desktop that is usable is not the problem.
The problem is that there is no way to seamlessly run Microsoft products. (Yes, I know, it's not even possible to do that on a Windows box, but that's beside the point.)
It took a long time before I could read.doc and.ppt files correctly. Shortly after OpenOffice got good enough at it, Microsoft introduced.docx and.pptx files. The question of who is responsible for this, or why it happens, is irrelevant. What matters is that I have to ask my colleagues to convert their files from THEIR default format to something I can read. Personally, I like poking my colleagues a bit. But when I tell a friend to use linux, and they can't read the files that everyone is sending them, they don't poke, they just return to Windows.
At work, I use scientific instruments that are controlled by Windows software. Some manufacturers are gradually providing other options, but for the most part, it's Windows, and it's got to be REAL Windows, not Windows inside VirtualBox. As much as I would like to make linux the operating system in the lab, it's not going to happen until linux can run Windows applications.
Users can adjust to a new desktop, and will if there is a reason, or if it's interesting. But you can't adjust to a system that won't read what you need to read or run what you need to run.
Awesome, sounds like a great idea.
So does country recognition for browsers... until you are in a country whose language still gives you headaches. You might be surprised at how very unhelpful it is to someone struggling with the language to have everything popping up in Czech. Perhaps a flag to turn this off? Like google's secretive/ncr, only one that works a little more globally? I have no problem ignoring the ads in any language, but when shotwell tries to log me into facebook, I don't want the username/password prompt in Czech. Prosím? Maybe there's a case where I might fscking want to know what cars a company offers, so that when I get home I can buy one... instead of automatically being offered what is for sale in the city I happen to be logging in from. No?
Slashdot Mirror
If you think liberals are any more on the warpath than conservatives, you ARE too stupid :)
Does Facebook have the responsibility of ensuring we are only exposed to "real" news? No. You can blame them for providing tools that make it easier to spread fake news, but that's what printing presses were a few hundred years ago. No, it is YOUR responsibility to think critically about the things you read (and share). The big problem really is that the schools have not been able to teach enough of you to do so.
Actually, not quite. For the analogy to work, each half of the coin is equally heads and tails until the measurement. Only the entanglement itself (i.e. that one is opposite the other) was encoded in the envelope to begin with.
We might need another analogy. Consider Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as entangled particles guaranteed to hold opposite views on any given topic. With Hillary in New York and Donald in Los Angeles, ask Donald a question about one of the few things he has no opinion on. Until you ask, nobody (including Donald and Hillary) can know what his answer will be. But as soon as you ask and he answers, we Know what Hillary thinks about the subject as well.
Now, at this point, Donald and Hillary have taken Stands on the issue. Before the question was asked, each of them equally supported and opposed the issue. Once the question was asked, one fully supported and the other fully opposed the issue. If you then manage to convince Donald to change his mind, your efforts destroy the entanglement, so it will not change Hillary's opinion.
Actually... you are right...
Who said anything about destroying energy? If you want to do something, you take energy from one place (i.e. the chemical potential energy of propane molecules) and put it somewhere else. The "somewhere else" always involves some increased thermal energy of the surroundings, and often also involves actually doing something, like making your forklift go (increased kinetic energy), lifting a pallet (increased potential energy), or in this case, moving electrons around. It is in fact the very conservation of energy that you implicitly invoke that blows your argument out of the water: energy is neither destroyed NOR CREATED. You take 1 J of energy from the power company and move some electrons around, you don't have a whole J of energy to put into heating the room.
Actually, you don't do so well in thermodynamics either :) Your conservation of energy bit is fine, but energy is heat + work. So your argument only holds if no work was done. Computation requires moving charge through potential differences, which is electrical work.
Lovely post :) If I had mod points, I'd mod it up. Except, of course, that you spelled course wrong....
Excellent. This takes care of the problem of rising sea levels.
5 mod points but not a one that says "CONTRITE". I guess it's so rare.... Anyway, +1 CONTRITE.
right. I didn't have any debt until I landed a faculty position.
Why should lower CEO pay even be a goal? Jealousy? Hatred of success? They work harder for their pay than lottery winners, sports stars, or movie stars.
Lottery winners? Yes. Sports stars? Not so sure. Movie stars? I highly doubt it.
The goal should be to increase efficiency of production of goods and services over time. "Making the pie bigger" entirely dominates "how the pie is divided" over time.
So you think endless growth is the sustainable answer?
Almost everyone in America has a higher standard of living than a medieval king, and certainly better health care. Damn, I'll take being a modern wage slave over a medieval king just for dentistry alone!
Yes. America's health care is certainly a cut above medieval. Modern? No. But better than medieval. Ok, I'm done now. Wow... it feels good to stop....
I assumed originally that you were one of the less scientifically literate types swayed by sensationalist reporting. But now you report that you are yourself a scientist....? In the light of sweeping statements like
I then assumed you were a young firebrand recently disillusioned by your first encounter with worldly imperfection.
But... you are perhaps older than me? Though I doubt that, your statement still implies my second assumption is incorrect.
Can you seriously say that you have examined all branches of the sciences, and that all science is a minefield of deceit? You should set an example here: what percentage of the sciences have you studied, and how much of that turned out to be unduly influenced? What is the statistical significance of your study? Otherwise you are merely contributing to the noise that fuels the growing blaze of ignorance.
disclaimer: I, too, am a scientist. Take my words with a grain of salt.
The peer review process, which has been around quite some time, works to prevent exactly the problems you claim exist with science today. Many peer-reviewed results later turn out to be incorrect - science does not follow a straight path to some mythical "truth" - but for the most part, papers which are peer reviewed are much more likely to be reporting work carried out in accordance with accepted scientific practice. The reason most people don't trust scientists is because, being scientifically illiterate themselves, they rely on the media to digest science for them. Stories of corrupted science and wild claims sell much better than the dull, careful, incremental progress most scientists make, leading to a popular perception of minefields of deceit or moats of lies.
Ever try a Domino's Thin Crust with Double Bacon? One of my friends in college got two of those once and, after the puking up the first one, left the second on his desk. The next day, he found the grease soaked through the pizza, its own box, the lid of the box under it, and the bottom of the box under it, sticking it solidly to the table.
and ate it.
The cornucopia of confusion evidenced above could easily be resolved by using the US definition of a country: that date when the First Settlers, having arrived at an unoccupied land (or having exterminated enough of the indigenous people to make it essentially unoccupied), spit in the face of the country that supported their colonization efforts and mount a PR campaign in the form of a document proclaiming themselves to be upholders of the most basic human rights.
At 5 years of daily driving, I'm 110% positive its overdue for a change. You're also implying you get AT LEAST 175 miles out of every single charge to get anywhere near that life time, something else I don't buy. (I'm ignoring any reality of what you have and basing these numbers on the ideal numbers on the ideal batteries, of which I would bet a couple pay checks on your car not having as those would cost several times more than your entire car)
Of course, I know something about batteries, charge cycles, and how the chemical reactions over time cause permanent changes that no amount of silly stories you make up will change.
No matter what you read, your car does not have a battery that lasts as long as you claim it does. Fucking nasa doesnt' even have batteries that perform at the level you're claiming. Sorry. You can make up some shit and point me at web pages all you want, but its still not going to make it true.
So where does my 2004 Prius with 175000 miles, still using its original battery, fit into your world?
No no no... life is fine tuned for earth.
So the only exposure we had was a programmable calculator in physics class. We had to write a program to solve a quadratic equation. "No, it can't solve for imaginary roots." First of many challenges...
I have been using linux since RedHat 4.1. Finding a desktop that is usable is not the problem.
.doc and .ppt files correctly. Shortly after OpenOffice got good enough at it, Microsoft introduced .docx and .pptx files. The question of who is responsible for this, or why it happens, is irrelevant. What matters is that I have to ask my colleagues to convert their files from THEIR default format to something I can read. Personally, I like poking my colleagues a bit. But when I tell a friend to use linux, and they can't read the files that everyone is sending them, they don't poke, they just return to Windows.
The problem is that there is no way to seamlessly run Microsoft products. (Yes, I know, it's not even possible to do that on a Windows box, but that's beside the point.)
It took a long time before I could read
At work, I use scientific instruments that are controlled by Windows software. Some manufacturers are gradually providing other options, but for the most part, it's Windows, and it's got to be REAL Windows, not Windows inside VirtualBox. As much as I would like to make linux the operating system in the lab, it's not going to happen until linux can run Windows applications.
Users can adjust to a new desktop, and will if there is a reason, or if it's interesting. But you can't adjust to a system that won't read what you need to read or run what you need to run.
You can get eggrolls, rice, wonton soup, and Szechuan chicken in 5 minutes...
Awesome, sounds like a great idea. So does country recognition for browsers... until you are in a country whose language still gives you headaches. You might be surprised at how very unhelpful it is to someone struggling with the language to have everything popping up in Czech. Perhaps a flag to turn this off? Like google's secretive /ncr, only one that works a little more globally? I have no problem ignoring the ads in any language, but when shotwell tries to log me into facebook, I don't want the username/password prompt in Czech. Prosím? Maybe there's a case where I might fscking want to know what cars a company offers, so that when I get home I can buy one... instead of automatically being offered what is for sale in the city I happen to be logging in from. No?
Helpful tip: know your audience. You'd have easliy gotten a Score:5, Funny but for the Diaspora remarks which hit too close to home.