I'll take a swing at a few of your ideas, although I can't address much about the photographs as I've never studied them.
> After watching the video of the moon rover driving around and kicking up dust as it went... and then seeing the video of the Lunar Lander rocketing off the moon's surface without stiring up any dust at all????? The only way I could see the smaller force of the rover kicking up more dust than the larger force of the rocking pod not able to moving ANY dust at all is if the laws of physics are not constant on the moon.
Actually, the trap you're falling into is based on assumptions about how dust behaves on the Moon. Those assumptions almost always stem from observed behavior of dust and dirt on Earth. There are a few key differences, however, that make a HUGE difference in how small particles behave in these two very different environments. They are:
Atmosphere: this is by far the most important, and the most confusing. This causes two things. First is that there's a lack of turbulence that is unfamiliar to those who don't work with vacuum. This is what causes your disparity of observation. You'll notice in the film that the return module of the lander did not fire a rocket directly at the moon, but instead it pushed on the top of the descent module. That means the main thrust of the engine went downward into the descent module and then straight out sideways. On Earth, this would cause a swirl of air all around the module, but on the Moon, there's no air to swirl, and the thrust never gets to the ground, so there's no dust movement. Second, dust on the Moon is not like dust or dirt or sand on Earth. On Earth, these things get worn smooth by air and water. On the Moon, they don't so dust is very hard-edged, and its behavior more closely mimics wet snow than sand.
Gravity: this tends to cause things to behave differently than expected, and it goes hand in hand with the lack of atmosphere. Just as Mr. Armstrong did not descend quickly to the surface, we'd expect dust to fall slowly. However, what the mind fails to suss out is that the lack of air resistance more than makes up for the lesser gravity when small particles are concerned, so when dust falls quickly, it looks odd. However, the rub is that the only place dust can fall as quickly as a human being is in a low gravity vacuum, which would seem to prove that they were in fact on the Moon.
> Not going to get into the issues of trying to pass through the Van Allen Belts wearing suits of 7 layers of 'glass like' material for protection.
This stems from misunderstanding how radiation works on the human body. The method for determining exposure has two factors: intensity and duration. One can get a fairly high dose of radiation and not develop health problems if the the duration is short. Conversely, low exposure for long periods can cause difficulties, which is why x-ray technicians stand behind a wall when they use the machine (else they'd get small doses, but lots of small doses) while you get to stand in the beam (high exposure, but you only do it a few times in your lifetime). The Van Allen belt has (relatively) high radiation levels, but unless you're planning on living in it (and most space stations are positioned outside it (well, inside it, relative to Earth)) you're not going to get a lethal dose. All of the discussions about how much shielding is needed for the Van Allen belt are based on the amount of shielding necessary to block all of the radiation, but it's not necessary to do that if you limit the amount of time spent there. The balance is that the Apollo astronauts did get a dose of radiation, but it was in the area of 1 rem (radiation sickness doesn't normally appear until the levels get to about 20-25 rems), so it wouldn't be particularly dangerous (or at least no more so than the trip to space on the booster rocket was to begin with).
I don't even want to talk about where I thought you were talking about putting that stylus, except to wonder whether it would then interfere with the wipe.
Well, there are many who believe that the engines on the U.S. space shuttle are not necessary, and therefore just add failure points. If this is functionally true (I'm not yet completely convinced one way or the other, but you weren't asking for my reasoning) then the Russian design is better. Besides, since the idea is the same but the design is radically different, it's tough to label the Buran a ripoff, just on the basis that they look the same on the outside. Also, the proposals for U.S. space shuttle 2.0 do include several "glide plane on a separate engine" ideas that would fit your definition of ripoffs of the Buran. The space race has always been this way, mostly because the designs are all going to be fairly similar until there's a paradigm change in the methods of propelling an object into orbit (which, notably, some of the shuttle 2.0 designs suggest, such as launching a regular plane, refueling in the air, and then firing the boosters to finish the jump).
All right, then let's try a slightly different approach. Let's say the recording contract is written up, and the artist makes a record, and the record does fairly well. In fact, let's assume it went gold! The record company spends 5.4 million dollars, and the record pulls in about 7 million. That's a win all around, right? Not quite. See, according to the nicest recording contracts, the artist gets a small percentage of the gross. From that percentage the artist must pay back the record company for the cost of production and promotion, while the huge percentage the company gets is just considered gravy. So, while the artist pays back the 5.4 million, he doesn't get a dime. The artist's cut of the 7 million doesn't begin to cover the 5.4 million dollars he owes. So, now that he's mildly popular and 5.1 MILLION DOLLARS in debt, he either:
1.) goes on tour and pays the debt back over the next several years, or
2.) declares bankruptcy and dissolves the band.
The problem with number one is he can't pay the rent during those touring years, and the problem with number two is that once he declares bankruptcy he's not legally allowed to perform or record under the now-popular name, so the hard-won fame vaporizes. Now, let's do that math:
Original investment: $5.4 million
Profit: $7 million
Amount to artist: $0.00
Amount to record company: $7 million
Value of artist in the market: $0.00
So, in exchange for that one year of fun, he's got no real property, ten years of not being able to get a credit card, and he's got to go back to the 7-11 job, or do the whole thing again. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem to qualify as "a heck of a lot further ahead than he was". This is one of the major contributors to the "one hit wonder" phenomenon, and even the major players have difficulties with it. Glen Campbell has twenty gold records, and he has said that he lost money making every album he recorded.
A quarter mile is minimum accepted safe distance for radioactive contamination, according to Civil Defense code. This may be a rule from back in the '50s, but I'm pretty sure it's still law. I'll try to find the information, but the last time I saw this was in a printed book we found in an abandoned fallout shelter, so I don't know if it's on the 'Net.
Actually, you can prevent the need for having to think fast in a panic by putting a framing hammer under your car seat. When the car does in the drink, loft hammer and make an easy exit. The good part is that it works better than your solution in the situation that you need to exit through the windshield (or more likely, the back window).
I won't mention its road rage prevention uses here, though, since that would be offtopic.
Well, this does depend on how you define "disperse". It's unlikely that the fuel would be thrown all that far when the reactor remains hit the ground, but since a good portion of the shielding would have been peeled off by the fall, the resulting lump of slag would be (both in a radioactive and thermal sense) quite hot, so nobody could stay within a quarter mile of it safely. In a remote location in the Sahara desert, it wouldn't pose much of a threat, but if it fell in a New Jersey suburb, it could displace quite a few people.
> "...software are communicating properly" implies some sort of plurality in what is communicating properly, which is closer to the high end of the continuum between "sometimes does something right" and "never does anything wrong".
I have to argue the usage here, because while your argument holds logical merit, his usage was incorrect in this context. His entire sentence read
We, as programmers, should make sure that our software are comunicating properly.
This usage is not right, since in this context, if he wants to indicate plurality he should use the plural form "softwares" (which is awkward itself, but it the only grammatically correct choice for this construct). He could reword the sentence "...software communicates properly" but as he used it, it's not proper communication, hence my detection of irony.
> This small generator can be made pretty damn
indestructable (blackbox anyone?)
This is a nice thought, but we're talking about spacefaring vehicles, not airliners. There isn't an airplane built that goes as high as these vehicles. The problem actually isn't a downrange crash from a failure within launch frame (the casing for the radioactives will withstand this sort of failure), but a reentry-style fall from a failure in the second/third stage. From that height, the generator is going to be falling very fast and very hot, and solid iron has trouble surviving these conditions (as would most black boxes, and anything else not specifically designed to withstand de-orbiting). So, while it's not a very big problem (from sub-orbit, it's hard to hit a populated area), it's still very possible to drop radioactive material in a populated area such that contamination is likely.
I agree that there has been a lot of fearmongering about using radioactives for spaceships, but we learned in AE classes that using the term "indestructable" in conjunction with anything that leaves the atmosphere is usually a mistake.
Agreed about the social simplicity of lying. The reason I'm hesitating is only because my model is more for scientific use than social (well, I use more for science than social studies), so false information is usually only due to malfunction or mistake.
By the way, if I used a.sig, I'd swipe your ending equation for it. That's a beautiful statement.
Thank you, and I accept your handshake. One thing I'd like to note is that, in this application of Occam's Razor, the concept of a soul complicates that particular theory, but since OR only suggests percentages, we have to consider the theories as a whole; that is, the theories do not fit "A vs. A+Soul" and so that one thing alone may not be sufficient to decide which is simpler. In this case, based on the report only, I can't find any answer as to why she was able to describe the pen (discounting other theories like getting the pen picture from someone else's perception via telepathy, which is complex in a different way) other than "lucky guess" or "coincidental resemblance to a pen she saw when she had her vision" or possibly "doctor is fudging or outright lying", any of which add a good chunk of complexity to the equation themselves.
We're in agreement about not knowing, then. It's good to know that there's a middle ground to the two extremes, and that I'm not the only one standing there.
One point that I'd like to extend, although you're closer to right than I am with the reactions of others to our good doctor. You stated:
His peers would be left with deciding between (a) the doctor believes his patient had an OBE and (b) the doctor made the whole thing up.
Now, you are right to assume that some will think of one or the other, but there's a third, and the doctor's presentation could point people in that direction: (c) The doctor relates what the woman said, and does not make any comment on whether it was really an OBE or just her say-so.
Perhaps just a nit, but it needed picking in this case.
> Until there is evidence of either, they don't exist. That's how science works.
That's not even close to correct. The scientific method is a way to try to determine the likelihood of a given event or phenomenon, not to prove or disprove to absolutes. Any scientist who thinks in absolutes is being a bad scientist. The correct way to describe it is this:
"If there is no hard evidence to be presented to support ESP or alien abductions, it is rational to assume they don't work as advertised."
That's as close to an absolute as you want to get, as a scientist. To say that ESP doesn't exist (and that people are never abducted by aliens) only puts you in a position to assume something that may not be accurate. Remember the watchphrase, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
...because you're far too erudite to blow off as a "new-ager", which is what many here will try to do. So, here goes:
> You don't always have the luxury of setting up tests for your hypotheses. Sometimes all you get are observations of events that occur on their own. I for one am not willing to be hit by a bus just so someone can interview me for an NDE if I happen to survive. But that doesn't discount the evidence.
Very true. However, evidence gained in this way needs to be much more convincing to be as valid as a repeatable, controlled experiment because there are so many variables involved. Therefore, I'm willing to accept this sort of evidence, but there has to be more to it than to something "hard" (I put that in quotes because so few of us can agree what the term really means, but suffice it to say that I mean "gathered in a controlled, repeatable experiment").
> No, I don't expect to convince you or anyone with one event, but there are thousands like this. And they are coming more frequently from established healthcare professionals who have every reason to keep them hidden for fear of damage to their careers.
There are two points of contention here. First, from whom does the anecdote come? Unless it comes directly from the doctor himself, you're presenting a fourth-party anecdote (you said that author said that doctor said that blind woman said...) and frankly, that doesn't carry very much weight. Where's the doctor's report on the whole thing? Which brings me to my second point: why would this doctor think that relating this event could possibly jeopardize his career? He could easily relate the story without implying any belief in what she said, if he's worried about being labelled a mystic. So, all in all, this particular anecdote fails most of my "rule of thumb" tests:
1.) Does it violate any currently accepted physical laws? (Nope)
2.) Does it rely solely on someone's recount (is it completely hearsay)? (Yes)
3.) Is there some reason it's not repeatable? (Yes)
4.) Is is consistent with Occam's Razor? (Not Sure)
5.) Does it require fallacious assumptions or "belief" to be valid? (Not Really)
6.) Is it statistically significant? (No)
7.) Does it require that its participants do, say or believe extraordinary things? (Yes)
So, we're not doing very well in our count. Two misses is a symptom of failure in the scientific method, and we've got three (and a half, if number four is a "not Sure"). Of course, these are rules of thumb, and there are many ways in which something completely valid can fail this test, but it's a good first indicator of a problem. In case you're wondering, the not-obvious answers are:
3: Not repeatable isn't a show-stopper, but since it's a rule of thumb it's allowed.
4: A separate-from-body "soul" is not usually going to be the simplest possible answer, but there could be other forces at work, or perhaps there really are souls, so I say "Not Sure".
6: Notwithstanding your suggestion to "thousands of reports", this is one event, and without being presented with any others I must so judge.
7: This is actually because I find it confusing that doctors would think that reporting this sort of thing would be hazardous to their careers. As I said above, this doctor didn't have to profess believing this story to report it, and would IMHO be remiss in not reporting it, if only to assist a psychologist or psychiatrist if treatment was needed by this woman (nearly dying can be very disturbing and often people require counseling for it).
> I have an instinct to eat and avoid death. I do not have an instinct to read.
It could be argued (and often has) that humans are driven by instinct to "figure things out" (to learn) since learning has long been a very good survival mechanism. The fact that you had to learn to read doesn't make the desire to do it non-instinctual. It's just a more efficient way to learn (like language and other forms of communication) so you use it.
> No. My version of an open critical mind doesn't discount what it cannot explain simply because it seems far-fetched.
Again, true, but by your post your open critical mind assumes instead of discounting, which is better than ingoring but has its own pitfalls. To wit, here are your own words, from the same post, no less:
And don't simply disbelieve because it seems too extraordinary...
The fact that I am aware of myself and my surroundings is incredible, and I cannot accept that this awareness arises simply from my electro-chemical brain.
In one, you say not to disbelieve the extraordinary, and in the next you disbelieve something as being too incredible! These statements directly contradict one another, and point out where the assumption bit you. You assume that consciousness is too complex to be grounded in elecrochemistry, simply because you cannot comprehend how it can happen. That's a logical fallacy that you need to avoid.
> I'm telling you to neither deny nor accept -- simply to consider.
You are obviously a very thoughtful person, and you put forward good points, so I say this without insult, and with the greatest respect: you should consider your own assumptions more closely. I have run afoul of such assumptions before, so I know they can be subtle sometimes, but with practice it's possible to discover that being critical of one's own argument is (ahem) critical to critical thinking.
Are you sure you don't mean "persecuted"? Still, the parent post was a joke, and jokes often lampoon groups of people for humor. Whether it was tacky or not really depends on the listener.
Also, where did "science-worshipping" come in? How are you to know that the post wasn't written by a Catholic, or even a priest with a wry sense of humor?
Because you toss around baseless accusations while decrying baseless accusations in others, you shouldn't be modded as a troll. The problem is that "-1, Hypocrite" is not available, and so that's the best choice in the list.
> I'm afraid that the original poster is correct, the only place you'll find an adult site's reputation being seen as good is at their colocation (bling bling) and a pedophile convention.
> Imagine that there was a "duplication device" that could clone whatever you put into it - a watch, a TV, a car, whatever. Imagine it only cost $.20 per use. This device could literally destroy our society.
Destroy, indeed. It would fundamentally change our society, but that's a far cry from wholesale destruction. Firstly, why should I cry about stores going out of business because we no longer need them? Because of all of the poor workers who don't have jobs any more? If they're the ones you're worried about, let me ask you, why would any of these poor people need their jobs any more? They'd use the machine to get what they need and want, just like I would. We'd all have to find jobs that don't involve manufacturing or transport (of goods), or we'd need to restructure society to compensate for not needing to make anything (although unless you had a REALLY BIG MACHINE you'd still need labor to build things like houses and cruise ships and spacecraft and such), but I can't see that as a bad thing on the balance. I mean, Porsche wouldn't make any money selling Boxsters any more, but people would still need the roads maintained, and there would always be a need for teenagers pumping gas. To extend to the digital music world, no artist would be able to sell CDs, but there would still be a huge demand for concerts (which is where the real money is in the music industry, anyway).
> Why doesn't the same logic apply to digital music? Sure CD's are way over priced, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go steal! Sorry to rant but I'm tired of people trying to justify what they know is not right!
The same logic does apply to digital music, but that's tangential to my problems with these people. The uses to which I wish to put my content are completely legitimate, but still I run afoul of their howling complaints that I'm stealing food from the mouths of these artists' children. For example, I want to watch DVDs on my high-powered Linux box. I bought the DVDs from my local Best Buy, and I don't copy them, but I'm not allowed to create, buy or use a DVD player for Linux because of the DMCA. For another example, I own a very high quality CD jukebox, which is attached to my multi-thousand dollar sound system. Because they say CDs need to be protected, they produce CDs which will not play on my CD player (note, not a computer, but a friggin' CD PLAYER!) and don't bother to warn me that they won't play, and won't let me return them if I should buy one and find that it's a coaster. For a third example, I can't play said same CD in my computer, but they provide digital tracks for computer use. Only, if you'll remember, my machine runs Linux, so I still can't listen to the tracks, because they require Windows Media Player. Again, finding my way around this so I can listen to a CD that I bought legitimately has been outlawed by the DMCA, so I'm stuck.
I'd be very interested to hear how any of this qualifies as justification for doing something wrong. It seems a lot more that a bunch of record companies and movie studios got together and decided that they could make a lot more money by enforcing a badly outdated business model on me, without any real concern as to whether they're screwing me in the process.
Good! Listen up, then, and you'll learn something here.
1.) Personal Data: As was said so eloquently above, I neither know nor trust you. I don't have any real reason to believe you'll keep my email address private, even if you say you will. If your software requires a key code to run, and I have to give you an address to get it, I'll move on to the next package. If and when I decide to buy it, I'll give you my information.
2.) Time: If you think the time necessary to fill out the form is the important part, you're wrong. First is trust (see #1 above), and second is response time. If for some reason I assume your product is worth downloading, but I can't make it run immediately to see if it suits, I'll find another that will. I rarely have time to put any package to an exhaustive test period, and mostly I get these sorts of programs because I need a specific problem solved in short order. If your package can't demonstrate its utility in this regard within my time frame, I'm off to the next.
3.) Profitability: I don't have time to care if you think licensing is the only way to make money. If you think that way, then don't do eval packages. I care only that your software can (or cannot) solve the problem for which I sought it out. That's the real world. If your package does what I need, and does it well enough that it's better than the alternatives, you'll get a check. If it's not around in a year, then that's your software's problem. If you think that fully functional shareware can't make money, I point out that PKWare built a business on it. I like it, I use it, so I bought it. I didn't have to pay, since the shareware version is fully functional and never expires, but since it's better than the alternatives and does what I need it to do, they got a check.
Do the same and you'll get paid. Welcome to the real world.
I may be remembering badly, but I think I recall mention that mithril is simply silver infused with magic. Therefore, it wouldn't get a listing separate from silver. Hey, maybe Silver Surfer was made of mithril, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take a swing at a few of your ideas, although I can't address much about the photographs as I've never studied them.
> After watching the video of the moon rover driving around and kicking up dust as it went... and then seeing the video of the Lunar Lander rocketing off the moon's surface without stiring up any dust at all????? The only way I could see the smaller force of the rover kicking up more dust than the larger force of the rocking pod not able to moving ANY dust at all is if the laws of physics are not constant on the moon.
Actually, the trap you're falling into is based on assumptions about how dust behaves on the Moon. Those assumptions almost always stem from observed behavior of dust and dirt on Earth. There are a few key differences, however, that make a HUGE difference in how small particles behave in these two very different environments. They are:
Atmosphere: this is by far the most important, and the most confusing. This causes two things. First is that there's a lack of turbulence that is unfamiliar to those who don't work with vacuum. This is what causes your disparity of observation. You'll notice in the film that the return module of the lander did not fire a rocket directly at the moon, but instead it pushed on the top of the descent module. That means the main thrust of the engine went downward into the descent module and then straight out sideways. On Earth, this would cause a swirl of air all around the module, but on the Moon, there's no air to swirl, and the thrust never gets to the ground, so there's no dust movement. Second, dust on the Moon is not like dust or dirt or sand on Earth. On Earth, these things get worn smooth by air and water. On the Moon, they don't so dust is very hard-edged, and its behavior more closely mimics wet snow than sand.
Gravity: this tends to cause things to behave differently than expected, and it goes hand in hand with the lack of atmosphere. Just as Mr. Armstrong did not descend quickly to the surface, we'd expect dust to fall slowly. However, what the mind fails to suss out is that the lack of air resistance more than makes up for the lesser gravity when small particles are concerned, so when dust falls quickly, it looks odd. However, the rub is that the only place dust can fall as quickly as a human being is in a low gravity vacuum, which would seem to prove that they were in fact on the Moon.
> Not going to get into the issues of trying to pass through the Van Allen Belts wearing suits of 7 layers of 'glass like' material for protection.
This stems from misunderstanding how radiation works on the human body. The method for determining exposure has two factors: intensity and duration. One can get a fairly high dose of radiation and not develop health problems if the the duration is short. Conversely, low exposure for long periods can cause difficulties, which is why x-ray technicians stand behind a wall when they use the machine (else they'd get small doses, but lots of small doses) while you get to stand in the beam (high exposure, but you only do it a few times in your lifetime). The Van Allen belt has (relatively) high radiation levels, but unless you're planning on living in it (and most space stations are positioned outside it (well, inside it, relative to Earth)) you're not going to get a lethal dose. All of the discussions about how much shielding is needed for the Van Allen belt are based on the amount of shielding necessary to block all of the radiation, but it's not necessary to do that if you limit the amount of time spent there. The balance is that the Apollo astronauts did get a dose of radiation, but it was in the area of 1 rem (radiation sickness doesn't normally appear until the levels get to about 20-25 rems), so it wouldn't be particularly dangerous (or at least no more so than the trip to space on the booster rocket was to begin with).
Virg
I don't even want to talk about where I thought you were talking about putting that stylus, except to wonder whether it would then interfere with the wipe.
Virg
Well, there are many who believe that the engines on the U.S. space shuttle are not necessary, and therefore just add failure points. If this is functionally true (I'm not yet completely convinced one way or the other, but you weren't asking for my reasoning) then the Russian design is better. Besides, since the idea is the same but the design is radically different, it's tough to label the Buran a ripoff, just on the basis that they look the same on the outside. Also, the proposals for U.S. space shuttle 2.0 do include several "glide plane on a separate engine" ideas that would fit your definition of ripoffs of the Buran. The space race has always been this way, mostly because the designs are all going to be fairly similar until there's a paradigm change in the methods of propelling an object into orbit (which, notably, some of the shuttle 2.0 designs suggest, such as launching a regular plane, refueling in the air, and then firing the boosters to finish the jump).
Virg
All right, then let's try a slightly different approach. Let's say the recording contract is written up, and the artist makes a record, and the record does fairly well. In fact, let's assume it went gold! The record company spends 5.4 million dollars, and the record pulls in about 7 million. That's a win all around, right? Not quite. See, according to the nicest recording contracts, the artist gets a small percentage of the gross. From that percentage the artist must pay back the record company for the cost of production and promotion, while the huge percentage the company gets is just considered gravy. So, while the artist pays back the 5.4 million, he doesn't get a dime. The artist's cut of the 7 million doesn't begin to cover the 5.4 million dollars he owes. So, now that he's mildly popular and 5.1 MILLION DOLLARS in debt, he either:
1.) goes on tour and pays the debt back over the next several years, or
2.) declares bankruptcy and dissolves the band.
The problem with number one is he can't pay the rent during those touring years, and the problem with number two is that once he declares bankruptcy he's not legally allowed to perform or record under the now-popular name, so the hard-won fame vaporizes. Now, let's do that math:
Original investment: $5.4 million
Profit: $7 million
Amount to artist: $0.00
Amount to record company: $7 million
Value of artist in the market: $0.00
So, in exchange for that one year of fun, he's got no real property, ten years of not being able to get a credit card, and he's got to go back to the 7-11 job, or do the whole thing again. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem to qualify as "a heck of a lot further ahead than he was". This is one of the major contributors to the "one hit wonder" phenomenon, and even the major players have difficulties with it. Glen Campbell has twenty gold records, and he has said that he lost money making every album he recorded.
Virg
A quarter mile is minimum accepted safe distance for radioactive contamination, according to Civil Defense code. This may be a rule from back in the '50s, but I'm pretty sure it's still law. I'll try to find the information, but the last time I saw this was in a printed book we found in an abandoned fallout shelter, so I don't know if it's on the 'Net.
Virg
Actually, you can prevent the need for having to think fast in a panic by putting a framing hammer under your car seat. When the car does in the drink, loft hammer and make an easy exit. The good part is that it works better than your solution in the situation that you need to exit through the windshield (or more likely, the back window).
I won't mention its road rage prevention uses here, though, since that would be offtopic.
Virg
Well, this does depend on how you define "disperse". It's unlikely that the fuel would be thrown all that far when the reactor remains hit the ground, but since a good portion of the shielding would have been peeled off by the fall, the resulting lump of slag would be (both in a radioactive and thermal sense) quite hot, so nobody could stay within a quarter mile of it safely. In a remote location in the Sahara desert, it wouldn't pose much of a threat, but if it fell in a New Jersey suburb, it could displace quite a few people.
Virg
I have to argue the usage here, because while your argument holds logical merit, his usage was incorrect in this context. His entire sentence readThis usage is not right, since in this context, if he wants to indicate plurality he should use the plural form "softwares" (which is awkward itself, but it the only grammatically correct choice for this construct). He could reword the sentence "...software communicates properly" but as he used it, it's not proper communication, hence my detection of irony.
Virg
> We, as programmers, should make sure that our software are comunicating properly.
Am I the only one who sees humor in saying, "...software are communicating properly" in a comment about communicating properly? Anyone?
OK, I'll shut up now.
Virg
> This small generator can be made pretty damn indestructable (blackbox anyone?)
This is a nice thought, but we're talking about spacefaring vehicles, not airliners. There isn't an airplane built that goes as high as these vehicles. The problem actually isn't a downrange crash from a failure within launch frame (the casing for the radioactives will withstand this sort of failure), but a reentry-style fall from a failure in the second/third stage. From that height, the generator is going to be falling very fast and very hot, and solid iron has trouble surviving these conditions (as would most black boxes, and anything else not specifically designed to withstand de-orbiting). So, while it's not a very big problem (from sub-orbit, it's hard to hit a populated area), it's still very possible to drop radioactive material in a populated area such that contamination is likely.
I agree that there has been a lot of fearmongering about using radioactives for spaceships, but we learned in AE classes that using the term "indestructable" in conjunction with anything that leaves the atmosphere is usually a mistake.
Virg
Agreed about the social simplicity of lying. The reason I'm hesitating is only because my model is more for scientific use than social (well, I use more for science than social studies), so false information is usually only due to malfunction or mistake.
.sig, I'd swipe your ending equation for it. That's a beautiful statement.
By the way, if I used a
Virg
Thank you, and I accept your handshake. One thing I'd like to note is that, in this application of Occam's Razor, the concept of a soul complicates that particular theory, but since OR only suggests percentages, we have to consider the theories as a whole; that is, the theories do not fit "A vs. A+Soul" and so that one thing alone may not be sufficient to decide which is simpler. In this case, based on the report only, I can't find any answer as to why she was able to describe the pen (discounting other theories like getting the pen picture from someone else's perception via telepathy, which is complex in a different way) other than "lucky guess" or "coincidental resemblance to a pen she saw when she had her vision" or possibly "doctor is fudging or outright lying", any of which add a good chunk of complexity to the equation themselves.
Food for thought, at least.
Virg
One point that I'd like to extend, although you're closer to right than I am with the reactions of others to our good doctor. You stated:Now, you are right to assume that some will think of one or the other, but there's a third, and the doctor's presentation could point people in that direction: (c) The doctor relates what the woman said, and does not make any comment on whether it was really an OBE or just her say-so.
Perhaps just a nit, but it needed picking in this case.
Be well.
Virg
> Until there is evidence of either, they don't exist. That's how science works.
That's not even close to correct. The scientific method is a way to try to determine the likelihood of a given event or phenomenon, not to prove or disprove to absolutes. Any scientist who thinks in absolutes is being a bad scientist. The correct way to describe it is this:
"If there is no hard evidence to be presented to support ESP or alien abductions, it is rational to assume they don't work as advertised."
That's as close to an absolute as you want to get, as a scientist. To say that ESP doesn't exist (and that people are never abducted by aliens) only puts you in a position to assume something that may not be accurate. Remember the watchphrase, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Virg
This is funny. If you meant to do it, well done. If you didn't, you just made the best accidental joke of the day.
Virg
> You don't always have the luxury of setting up tests for your hypotheses. Sometimes all you get are observations of events that occur on their own. I for one am not willing to be hit by a bus just so someone can interview me for an NDE if I happen to survive. But that doesn't discount the evidence.
Very true. However, evidence gained in this way needs to be much more convincing to be as valid as a repeatable, controlled experiment because there are so many variables involved. Therefore, I'm willing to accept this sort of evidence, but there has to be more to it than to something "hard" (I put that in quotes because so few of us can agree what the term really means, but suffice it to say that I mean "gathered in a controlled, repeatable experiment").
> No, I don't expect to convince you or anyone with one event, but there are thousands like this. And they are coming more frequently from established healthcare professionals who have every reason to keep them hidden for fear of damage to their careers.
There are two points of contention here. First, from whom does the anecdote come? Unless it comes directly from the doctor himself, you're presenting a fourth-party anecdote (you said that author said that doctor said that blind woman said...) and frankly, that doesn't carry very much weight. Where's the doctor's report on the whole thing? Which brings me to my second point: why would this doctor think that relating this event could possibly jeopardize his career? He could easily relate the story without implying any belief in what she said, if he's worried about being labelled a mystic. So, all in all, this particular anecdote fails most of my "rule of thumb" tests:
1.) Does it violate any currently accepted physical laws? (Nope)
2.) Does it rely solely on someone's recount (is it completely hearsay)? (Yes)
3.) Is there some reason it's not repeatable? (Yes)
4.) Is is consistent with Occam's Razor? (Not Sure)
5.) Does it require fallacious assumptions or "belief" to be valid? (Not Really)
6.) Is it statistically significant? (No)
7.) Does it require that its participants do, say or believe extraordinary things? (Yes)
So, we're not doing very well in our count. Two misses is a symptom of failure in the scientific method, and we've got three (and a half, if number four is a "not Sure"). Of course, these are rules of thumb, and there are many ways in which something completely valid can fail this test, but it's a good first indicator of a problem. In case you're wondering, the not-obvious answers are:
3: Not repeatable isn't a show-stopper, but since it's a rule of thumb it's allowed.
4: A separate-from-body "soul" is not usually going to be the simplest possible answer, but there could be other forces at work, or perhaps there really are souls, so I say "Not Sure".
6: Notwithstanding your suggestion to "thousands of reports", this is one event, and without being presented with any others I must so judge.
7: This is actually because I find it confusing that doctors would think that reporting this sort of thing would be hazardous to their careers. As I said above, this doctor didn't have to profess believing this story to report it, and would IMHO be remiss in not reporting it, if only to assist a psychologist or psychiatrist if treatment was needed by this woman (nearly dying can be very disturbing and often people require counseling for it).
> I have an instinct to eat and avoid death. I do not have an instinct to read.
It could be argued (and often has) that humans are driven by instinct to "figure things out" (to learn) since learning has long been a very good survival mechanism. The fact that you had to learn to read doesn't make the desire to do it non-instinctual. It's just a more efficient way to learn (like language and other forms of communication) so you use it.
> No. My version of an open critical mind doesn't discount what it cannot explain simply because it seems far-fetched.
Again, true, but by your post your open critical mind assumes instead of discounting, which is better than ingoring but has its own pitfalls. To wit, here are your own words, from the same post, no less:In one, you say not to disbelieve the extraordinary, and in the next you disbelieve something as being too incredible! These statements directly contradict one another, and point out where the assumption bit you. You assume that consciousness is too complex to be grounded in elecrochemistry, simply because you cannot comprehend how it can happen. That's a logical fallacy that you need to avoid.
> I'm telling you to neither deny nor accept -- simply to consider.
You are obviously a very thoughtful person, and you put forward good points, so I say this without insult, and with the greatest respect: you should consider your own assumptions more closely. I have run afoul of such assumptions before, so I know they can be subtle sometimes, but with practice it's possible to discover that being critical of one's own argument is (ahem) critical to critical thinking.
Virg
Are you sure you don't mean "persecuted"? Still, the parent post was a joke, and jokes often lampoon groups of people for humor. Whether it was tacky or not really depends on the listener.
Also, where did "science-worshipping" come in? How are you to know that the post wasn't written by a Catholic, or even a priest with a wry sense of humor?
Because you toss around baseless accusations while decrying baseless accusations in others, you shouldn't be modded as a troll. The problem is that "-1, Hypocrite" is not available, and so that's the best choice in the list.
Virg
> I'm afraid that the original poster is correct, the only place you'll find an adult site's reputation being seen as good is at their colocation (bling bling) and a pedophile convention.
Why would pedophiles care about an adult site?
Virg
Don't sweat the karma loss. I ran my points for real once recently and came out over 80, so I'm sure I'll get it back soon.
Virg
Ignore the moderator who thoughtlessly labeled you a troll. I got it, and unlike Her Majesty, I was very amused.
Virg
Well, at least SOMEBODY relishes screwing me...
Virg
> Imagine that there was a "duplication device" that could clone whatever you put into it - a watch, a TV, a car, whatever. Imagine it only cost $.20 per use. This device could literally destroy our society.
Destroy, indeed. It would fundamentally change our society, but that's a far cry from wholesale destruction. Firstly, why should I cry about stores going out of business because we no longer need them? Because of all of the poor workers who don't have jobs any more? If they're the ones you're worried about, let me ask you, why would any of these poor people need their jobs any more? They'd use the machine to get what they need and want, just like I would. We'd all have to find jobs that don't involve manufacturing or transport (of goods), or we'd need to restructure society to compensate for not needing to make anything (although unless you had a REALLY BIG MACHINE you'd still need labor to build things like houses and cruise ships and spacecraft and such), but I can't see that as a bad thing on the balance. I mean, Porsche wouldn't make any money selling Boxsters any more, but people would still need the roads maintained, and there would always be a need for teenagers pumping gas. To extend to the digital music world, no artist would be able to sell CDs, but there would still be a huge demand for concerts (which is where the real money is in the music industry, anyway).
> Why doesn't the same logic apply to digital music? Sure CD's are way over priced, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go steal! Sorry to rant but I'm tired of people trying to justify what they know is not right!
The same logic does apply to digital music, but that's tangential to my problems with these people. The uses to which I wish to put my content are completely legitimate, but still I run afoul of their howling complaints that I'm stealing food from the mouths of these artists' children. For example, I want to watch DVDs on my high-powered Linux box. I bought the DVDs from my local Best Buy, and I don't copy them, but I'm not allowed to create, buy or use a DVD player for Linux because of the DMCA. For another example, I own a very high quality CD jukebox, which is attached to my multi-thousand dollar sound system. Because they say CDs need to be protected, they produce CDs which will not play on my CD player (note, not a computer, but a friggin' CD PLAYER!) and don't bother to warn me that they won't play, and won't let me return them if I should buy one and find that it's a coaster. For a third example, I can't play said same CD in my computer, but they provide digital tracks for computer use. Only, if you'll remember, my machine runs Linux, so I still can't listen to the tracks, because they require Windows Media Player. Again, finding my way around this so I can listen to a CD that I bought legitimately has been outlawed by the DMCA, so I'm stuck.
I'd be very interested to hear how any of this qualifies as justification for doing something wrong. It seems a lot more that a bunch of record companies and movie studios got together and decided that they could make a lot more money by enforcing a badly outdated business model on me, without any real concern as to whether they're screwing me in the process.
Virg
Good! Listen up, then, and you'll learn something here.
1.) Personal Data: As was said so eloquently above, I neither know nor trust you. I don't have any real reason to believe you'll keep my email address private, even if you say you will. If your software requires a key code to run, and I have to give you an address to get it, I'll move on to the next package. If and when I decide to buy it, I'll give you my information.
2.) Time: If you think the time necessary to fill out the form is the important part, you're wrong. First is trust (see #1 above), and second is response time. If for some reason I assume your product is worth downloading, but I can't make it run immediately to see if it suits, I'll find another that will. I rarely have time to put any package to an exhaustive test period, and mostly I get these sorts of programs because I need a specific problem solved in short order. If your package can't demonstrate its utility in this regard within my time frame, I'm off to the next.
3.) Profitability: I don't have time to care if you think licensing is the only way to make money. If you think that way, then don't do eval packages. I care only that your software can (or cannot) solve the problem for which I sought it out. That's the real world. If your package does what I need, and does it well enough that it's better than the alternatives, you'll get a check. If it's not around in a year, then that's your software's problem. If you think that fully functional shareware can't make money, I point out that PKWare built a business on it. I like it, I use it, so I bought it. I didn't have to pay, since the shareware version is fully functional and never expires, but since it's better than the alternatives and does what I need it to do, they got a check.
Do the same and you'll get paid. Welcome to the real world.
Virg
I bet the reason you failed math is that you couldn't tell the difference between math and logic. 8)
Virg
I may be remembering badly, but I think I recall mention that mithril is simply silver infused with magic. Therefore, it wouldn't get a listing separate from silver. Hey, maybe Silver Surfer was made of mithril, eh?
Virg