Well, that's a great shame. Whoever wrote the article on Wikipedia made no attempt to explain it in layman's terms. I give you:
In quantum gravity, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation[1] describes the quantum version of the Hamiltonian constraint using metric variables. Its commutation relations with the Diffeomorphism constraints generate the Bergmann-Komar "group" (which is the Diffeomorphism group on-shell, but differs off-shell).
Years of study no doubt required in order to even attempt to understand what that's all about!
When you say "colours don't exist in the world", you're making a category error. There are neural correlates of your phenomenological experience, but you can't say that the colour is the neural correlate. Something more is needed to explain your conscious experience of it and it's possible that something does not supervene on the physical at all (Chalmer's Hard Problem).
I do love physics, but I also despair of the strict Logical Positivism and just shut-up and calculate attitude of many physicists. I like the idea that even after you've described all of the forces, particles, fields and laws of physics, there is still something left to explain. I quite like the Mary's Room thought experiment as a way of presenting the difference (although there are objections to it, as there always are with these things).
Well, now I'm really confused, so thanks for your +5 insightful comment. The reason I'm confused is because I was under the impression that the Schrödinger equation evolves over time. Someone needs to back right up and explain how it "looks static" in the content of General Relativity.
So they've taken something with variable quality and improved it by implementing a solution that itself has variable quality with the downside that it's horrendously expensive to render.
Good job you're Anonymous Coward. Presumably you're an Anonymous Coward born before the Cold War too. I would recommend some reading, but I get the feeling you wouldn't be open to that.
If the first thing you do when you come to this country is break the law (in this case immigration law), your rights should be circumscribed accordingly. This is extremely easy to understand, is necessary as a practical measure to prevent people taking the piss and is something judges at the European Court should take into account. The problem isn't the declaration, it's the EC's interpretation of it in many cases.
I saw it on a website - someone in a forum somewhere had linked it - can't remember where it was now. Not on TV. I didn't watch it all the way through. That kind of thing disgusts me, though not so much if it's fiction because I understand that no real suffering is involved (unless it's a terrible movie, in which case the suffering is all mine). I didn't know it would disgust me before I saw it. I suppose you could say I learnt something about myself.
Oh do shut up. Cameron had nothing to do with the creation and activities of GCQH, before 2010. He also wasn't responsible for CCTV cameras being put up all over the country. Cameron is against regulation of the press. A referendum on leaving the EU is what the people fucking want, regardless of what the end result would be. You have no idea whether that would be good or bad for the EU or the UK. His opposition to European Human Rights law is based on the fact that Islamic hate preachers can come to the UK and spread their shite, sponge benefits and resist deportation because they have a fucking cat, for 10 years at a cost of millions of pounds.
Are you aware of Chalmers tounge in cheek criticism of Penrose's hypothesis that he called "Minimisation of Mystery"? The critique goes something like this:
"Quantum Mechanics is mysterious. Consciousness is mysterious. Therefore the two mysteries must have a common source"
It was an attempt to show Penrose's thinking was erroneous. But here's the thing, the argument you make here is the same, but in reverse:
"Consciousness is mysterious. Free Will is mysterious. I can't explain these mysterious things so they must be illusions"
For the OP, this paper is based on the assumption that whatever the brain is doing is in principle computable. You need to add this to your basic axiom that the universe is entirely deterministic before you can decide the fact of the matter here. It seems to me that these are simply your beliefs. Given the current embarrassing state of physics, I would be a little more circumspect if I were you.
There are some images you can't un-see aren't there. The one and only time I ever watched one of these was back in the 1990's when I was at University. It was a movie of a Russian soldier having his throat cut by some Islamist lunatics. I won't say I was traumatised by it; only that seeing one is enough. From that clip I learned all I would ever need to know about both the ability of people to suffer and their ability to inflict suffering on others. I can honestly say I haven't looked at clip like that since (15 years later).
With respect to images of sex, what you say is correct but what we're talking about here are taboos and taboos aren't necessarily rational. I agree that if you're going to ban hardcore pornography, it's kind-of silly to not then ban images of people being brutally killed.
It isn't non-productive. It optimises the buy/sell price of various things. In markets where this kind of trading happens, sell prices are maximised and buy prices are minimised.
It sounds to me like a pipeline, with each component in the pipeline transforming the data. It's gStreamer... or that kind of thing, with a fancy front end for dragging and dropping elements into bins and connecting bins together with T's. Not exactly new.
Wow, you're resorting to an argument from authority, i.e. your own authority. The official report's statistics are wrong and as you're a mathematician, you obviously know better. Unfortunately for all of us mere thickos, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh's review into patient mortality that showed in excess of 14,000 needless deaths due to poor patient care didn't cross your lofty and self-regarding desk. I quote:
On February 6 2013, the Prime Minister announced that he had asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director for England, to review the quality of care and treatment provided by those NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts that are persistent outliers on mortality indicators. A total of 14 hospital trusts were investigated as part of this review. After the reviews, 11 of the 14 trusts were placed into special measures by Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority.
No, not one scandal from one hospital, multiple trusts under investigation and around 3,000 needless deathsthat we know about. 3,000! FYI, under investigation:
Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust
The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust
East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust
Medway NHS Foundation Trust
North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust
Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
Why be a fanboy about the NHS? It's crap. The reason it never gets better is because any politician who suggests it's too large and unwieldy gets flayed alive.
Why do you give a flying **** what the NSA are doing with your data? I don't. I'm more concerned about Russia, China and assorted hackers and scammers the world over who might actually want to do me harm, steal my identity or raid my bank accounts.
I thought I could use TrueCrypt to encrypt a binary blob containing stuff that's important that I don't lose, before putting it into Crypted on my Dropbox. My reasoning was Crypted on Dropbox is going to get hacked eventually, so TrueCrypt might give me a second line of defence. It turns out that people don't seem to trust TrueCrypt either.
So I'm at a loss as to what to do, over and above hiding various USB keys all over the place.
Nope. I don't think it's that at all. It's the absence of consequences in the narrative. For most people, "NSA snaffling my Twitter feed that's public anyway", or "NSA storing my emails that I've always assumed were read by a spotty oik at the internet company", or "NSA know my porn surfing history boo hoo" is consequence free. I just think "so what?".
Now, if it turns out that I had contact with someone who had contact with someone who was on a watch list, unknown to me, and I went to visit the US and someone from security with a rubber glove stuck his hand up my arse at Charlotte Douglas, and then I was turned away back to the UK, well, those are consequences. Despite what people say, the USA is still not a malign Police State. Not by any stretch of the imagination. When it comes to the US, I would worry more about the general availability of firearms in the population than I would about the NSA knowing my stuff.
I just find it generally hilarious that Snowden is now in Russia, a mafia state and that Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. It's like Guy Burgess mincing around Moscow, miserable as sin after the excitement of his notoriety had worn off. I expect both of these guys to die of liver failure in about 10 years time.
Slashdot Mirror
Years of study no doubt required in order to even attempt to understand what that's all about!
When you say "colours don't exist in the world", you're making a category error. There are neural correlates of your phenomenological experience, but you can't say that the colour is the neural correlate. Something more is needed to explain your conscious experience of it and it's possible that something does not supervene on the physical at all (Chalmer's Hard Problem).
I do love physics, but I also despair of the strict Logical Positivism and just shut-up and calculate attitude of many physicists. I like the idea that even after you've described all of the forces, particles, fields and laws of physics, there is still something left to explain. I quite like the Mary's Room thought experiment as a way of presenting the difference (although there are objections to it, as there always are with these things).
Well, now I'm really confused, so thanks for your +5 insightful comment. The reason I'm confused is because I was under the impression that the Schrödinger equation evolves over time. Someone needs to back right up and explain how it "looks static" in the content of General Relativity.
Perfect answer. Please mod this guy up ^.
In what respect is C# and .NET "not going to be around for long"? AFAIK, Microsoft's roadmap doesn't include getting rid of them any time soon. They're too important for LOB applications.
So they've taken something with variable quality and improved it by implementing a solution that itself has variable quality with the downside that it's horrendously expensive to render.
Brilliant.
Good job you're Anonymous Coward. Presumably you're an Anonymous Coward born before the Cold War too. I would recommend some reading, but I get the feeling you wouldn't be open to that.
If the first thing you do when you come to this country is break the law (in this case immigration law), your rights should be circumscribed accordingly. This is extremely easy to understand, is necessary as a practical measure to prevent people taking the piss and is something judges at the European Court should take into account. The problem isn't the declaration, it's the EC's interpretation of it in many cases.
I saw it on a website - someone in a forum somewhere had linked it - can't remember where it was now. Not on TV. I didn't watch it all the way through. That kind of thing disgusts me, though not so much if it's fiction because I understand that no real suffering is involved (unless it's a terrible movie, in which case the suffering is all mine). I didn't know it would disgust me before I saw it. I suppose you could say I learnt something about myself.
Oh do shut up. Cameron had nothing to do with the creation and activities of GCQH, before 2010. He also wasn't responsible for CCTV cameras being put up all over the country. Cameron is against regulation of the press. A referendum on leaving the EU is what the people fucking want, regardless of what the end result would be. You have no idea whether that would be good or bad for the EU or the UK. His opposition to European Human Rights law is based on the fact that Islamic hate preachers can come to the UK and spread their shite, sponge benefits and resist deportation because they have a fucking cat, for 10 years at a cost of millions of pounds.
It was an attempt to show Penrose's thinking was erroneous. But here's the thing, the argument you make here is the same, but in reverse:
For the OP, this paper is based on the assumption that whatever the brain is doing is in principle computable. You need to add this to your basic axiom that the universe is entirely deterministic before you can decide the fact of the matter here. It seems to me that these are simply your beliefs. Given the current embarrassing state of physics, I would be a little more circumspect if I were you.
There are some images you can't un-see aren't there. The one and only time I ever watched one of these was back in the 1990's when I was at University. It was a movie of a Russian soldier having his throat cut by some Islamist lunatics. I won't say I was traumatised by it; only that seeing one is enough. From that clip I learned all I would ever need to know about both the ability of people to suffer and their ability to inflict suffering on others. I can honestly say I haven't looked at clip like that since (15 years later).
With respect to images of sex, what you say is correct but what we're talking about here are taboos and taboos aren't necessarily rational. I agree that if you're going to ban hardcore pornography, it's kind-of silly to not then ban images of people being brutally killed.
It isn't non-productive. It optimises the buy/sell price of various things. In markets where this kind of trading happens, sell prices are maximised and buy prices are minimised.
That's one of them. The other is getting everyone to agree on what to do and how to do it.
I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is no.
It sounds to me like a pipeline, with each component in the pipeline transforming the data. It's gStreamer... or that kind of thing, with a fancy front end for dragging and dropping elements into bins and connecting bins together with T's. Not exactly new.
Oh dear!
Why be a fanboy about the NHS? It's crap. The reason it never gets better is because any politician who suggests it's too large and unwieldy gets flayed alive.
I think you need to take your medication.
Except you're ignoring the fact that the NHS is like a sausage machine that frequently covers up its pumping out dead bodies instead of cured, healthy ones. Frankly, I'm shocked that this isn't higher up in your consciousness. The NHS covered up increased mortality rates due the utter incompetence of the people running it, politicians (Labour) did everything they could to prevent reports on it seeing the light of day.
The NHS is a terrible model to recommend to the US. There are far better in Europe and elsewhere.
Whatever you say about Rand Paul, at least someone is vaguely thinking about the US National Debt.
Your comment is unmitigated nonsense of the first order.
Citation?
Why do you give a flying **** what the NSA are doing with your data? I don't. I'm more concerned about Russia, China and assorted hackers and scammers the world over who might actually want to do me harm, steal my identity or raid my bank accounts.
I thought I could use TrueCrypt to encrypt a binary blob containing stuff that's important that I don't lose, before putting it into Crypted on my Dropbox. My reasoning was Crypted on Dropbox is going to get hacked eventually, so TrueCrypt might give me a second line of defence. It turns out that people don't seem to trust TrueCrypt either.
So I'm at a loss as to what to do, over and above hiding various USB keys all over the place.
Nope. I don't think it's that at all. It's the absence of consequences in the narrative. For most people, "NSA snaffling my Twitter feed that's public anyway", or "NSA storing my emails that I've always assumed were read by a spotty oik at the internet company", or "NSA know my porn surfing history boo hoo" is consequence free. I just think "so what?".
Now, if it turns out that I had contact with someone who had contact with someone who was on a watch list, unknown to me, and I went to visit the US and someone from security with a rubber glove stuck his hand up my arse at Charlotte Douglas, and then I was turned away back to the UK, well, those are consequences. Despite what people say, the USA is still not a malign Police State. Not by any stretch of the imagination. When it comes to the US, I would worry more about the general availability of firearms in the population than I would about the NSA knowing my stuff.
I just find it generally hilarious that Snowden is now in Russia, a mafia state and that Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. It's like Guy Burgess mincing around Moscow, miserable as sin after the excitement of his notoriety had worn off. I expect both of these guys to die of liver failure in about 10 years time.