Well, without having a working TOE, combined with some kind of confidence that said TOE is actually how the universe works, you obviously couldn't ever guarantee unknowability. But then, you also can't guarantee any scientific finding whatsoever. From that perspective, gravity is as much of a belief as evolution and christianity.
What we can say is that given our current scientific knowledge, we can guarantee that no understanding of the diamond/laser system, no matter how sophisticated (even knowing, for example, the exact position and velocity, say, of every proton, neutron, and electron involved in the entire apparatus) is sufficient to predict the outcome. In fact, we can guarantee that not even knowing it down to the quark level is good enough. That the knowledge needed to predict the outcome either simply doesn't exist, or requires knowing information about whatever makes up quarks, and that the best supercolliders we can build haven't broken up a quark yet.
Random number generation is used in applied cryptography. That's the application for which it is useful to have a source of random numbers that can't be guessed by a sufficiently well funded opponent. In this case, it might be literally impossible for any opponent to be well-funded enough to defeat this.
That's a confirmatory bias. Lots of people think just like you do, right up to the revelation that their spouse is cheating. The ones who are right get to say: oh, but I was right, and they were wrong. I know my stuff, that other person didn't know what it meant to be in a successful relationship.
Well, there are things about the universe for which we have no explanation other than 'it's random'. Stuff where the internal state, if any, is hidden from us in pretty fundamental ways. If your opponent has to surround your laser experiment with a jupiter scale atom smasher in order to determine what you're going to get, that's pretty securely random.
Well, for a tight enough definition of 'successful', 0% of such relationships would fail. But then you literally have no idea if you're in one, so that's useless.
The percentage of non-committed marriages is tiny.
And remember that half of all long-term committed and successful relationships are still going to fail, and that having had your children, you've put yourself in the category of more likely to fail due to the increased stress.
There's no way to guarantee you won't be in the.15% whose vasectomies fail, so saying it's 100% effective is misleading. Also, there are a handful of cases of spontaneous healing of the gap in that.15%, so it's not even 100% for correctly implemented vasectomies.
What if he wants to get some other woman pregnant? Just because his wife doesn't want any more children, and he wants a way to pacify her doesn't mean he should get snipped.
That may well be true... my point was only that anything OTC is no longer a big moneymaker for big pharma. All of big pharmas big moneymakers of the last ~20 years have been patent medicines for common chronic conditions like heart disease, arthritis, etc.
Men performing science are aware (god, I hope) that they live in a world with imperfect people. Even rich, brilliant, and evil people. They make choices to study one thing, or study another. Science may be amoral, but scientists are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, without having a working TOE, combined with some kind of confidence that said TOE is actually how the universe works, you obviously couldn't ever guarantee unknowability. But then, you also can't guarantee any scientific finding whatsoever. From that perspective, gravity is as much of a belief as evolution and christianity.
What we can say is that given our current scientific knowledge, we can guarantee that no understanding of the diamond/laser system, no matter how sophisticated (even knowing, for example, the exact position and velocity, say, of every proton, neutron, and electron involved in the entire apparatus) is sufficient to predict the outcome. In fact, we can guarantee that not even knowing it down to the quark level is good enough. That the knowledge needed to predict the outcome either simply doesn't exist, or requires knowing information about whatever makes up quarks, and that the best supercolliders we can build haven't broken up a quark yet.
Quote from the summary:
Kinect 2 system that will most likely launch with the next iteration of the Xbox line
So yes, in case it was unclear, there's a new xbox coming too. The chance that it will not be named xbox 720 at this point are slim.
If you can't sell a million units on black friday, you may as well surrender.
Well from that perspective, one cannot reasonably doubt reality. Without reality, there can be no doubt.
They might have offices in Ireland, but as far as I can tell Facebook headquarters (where all the money is) is incorporated in the US.
I think they're saying we can usefully measure an effect, the cause of which is unknowable.
If I believed that our entire reality was actually a simulation being run in a higher level universe, why wouldn't I expect complete determinism?
I think basically everyone in the gaming biz is now using MT, which is a very good PRNG.
Random number generation is used in applied cryptography. That's the application for which it is useful to have a source of random numbers that can't be guessed by a sufficiently well funded opponent. In this case, it might be literally impossible for any opponent to be well-funded enough to defeat this.
That's a confirmatory bias. Lots of people think just like you do, right up to the revelation that their spouse is cheating. The ones who are right get to say: oh, but I was right, and they were wrong. I know my stuff, that other person didn't know what it meant to be in a successful relationship.
Well, there are things about the universe for which we have no explanation other than 'it's random'. Stuff where the internal state, if any, is hidden from us in pretty fundamental ways. If your opponent has to surround your laser experiment with a jupiter scale atom smasher in order to determine what you're going to get, that's pretty securely random.
Well, for a tight enough definition of 'successful', 0% of such relationships would fail. But then you literally have no idea if you're in one, so that's useless.
The percentage of non-committed marriages is tiny.
Well, marriage is pretty much the agreed upon societal definition for committed.
Long-term is a hazier definition, I'd agree.
Because facebook is a us company, and merck has a lot of money for lawyers, which is how these things are sorted out.
This study doesn't claim it had an effect on count. How was your motility rating?
It is now.
And remember that half of all long-term committed and successful relationships are still going to fail, and that having had your children, you've put yourself in the category of more likely to fail due to the increased stress.
There's no way to guarantee you won't be in the .15% whose vasectomies fail, so saying it's 100% effective is misleading. Also, there are a handful of cases of spontaneous healing of the gap in that .15%, so it's not even 100% for correctly implemented vasectomies.
What if he wants to get some other woman pregnant? Just because his wife doesn't want any more children, and he wants a way to pacify her doesn't mean he should get snipped.
And thanks re: my sig. I've always liked it for what it says about quotes taken out of context.
That may well be true ... my point was only that anything OTC is no longer a big moneymaker for big pharma. All of big pharmas big moneymakers of the last ~20 years have been patent medicines for common chronic conditions like heart disease, arthritis, etc.
Now I don't wanna go to work tomorrow (I work there). :)
SURPRISE! You're patient zero! You just won free health care for the rest of your life!!!**
** Rest of your life may be quite short. Please read all terms and conditions.
He could write it from the perspective of the beautiful women.
Men performing science are aware (god, I hope) that they live in a world with imperfect people. Even rich, brilliant, and evil people. They make choices to study one thing, or study another. Science may be amoral, but scientists are not.
That is the most concise complete refutation of Rand I have ever read, thanks.