You're just mincing words now. e^(a ln r) is not what the technically inclined call 'exponential' because there's a logarithm in the exponent. What you're doing is akin to saying f(r) = r is a sinusoidal function because r = sin(arcsin(r)), or that it's a quartic function because r = (r^(1/4))^4.
I used to work in Special Collections at UCSB. It's a nice facility and my boss was really cool. (He introduced me to Mogwai and Do Make Say Think.) He was responsible for getting some (all?) of the cylinders being presented online. He really went out of his way, too. Some of the cylinders he got were turn-of-the-century recordings from some middle eastern country (Afghanistan? I forget which). The labels were all in Arabic. It was really neat to see them up close! I got to play with some nice reel-to-reel players too.
The sibling post has it right. There would have been different settings for every cylinder. And the less you process the sound, the less of a chance there is of worsening the distortion. It might sound cleaner, but you might have messed up the signal a little while clearing out the noise. It was for this reason that when we made CDs of our old acrylic and aluminum 78s, the only processing done was to amplify it as much as possible without letting it clip.
Is there a place where all the groups that have names are listed, in a sort of catalog form? I keep finding references to various groups like SU(3) and the alternating group A5, and the names themselves give no sense of the structure of the given group. Once and for all I'd like to be able to read brief definitions of all of these named groups so when I see one I know what the heck they're talking about.
Furthermore, is there a catalog of various named algebraic objects, like groups, subgroups, monoids, rings, fields, etc.?
Why a blanket of dirt? Why not just make the dome thicker? I mean, if you're going to add any load at all, shouldn't you add load that also offers structural support?
So they still haven't observed the graviton and are still having trouble explaining why.
What I'd like to know is, why aren't physicists trying harder to explain gravity as a "pseudo-force" like the centrifugal "force" and the Coriolis effect? That's not just a rhetorical question. What makes physicists so sure that the graviton even exists? I trust that there must be some deep reasoning involved -- what is it?
I agree completely. The poster I was responding to didn't seem to have a strong enough argument for his/her claim that the original definitely did not experience continuity. I'm still not convinced other way.
I do lean in the other direction from that poster, though. Somehow I'm influenced by my personal answer to the question, "Why am I me and not someone else?" The way I see it, if I were someone else, I wouldn't know the difference. It's not so much that I am me, it's that there is a guy who uses the alias "Squiffy" who is self-aware, so of course his experience is going to seem intensely personal for him. It's the same for everyone. The "me that is me" is me *exactly* because of my experiences.
You seem to accept the notion that the substrate doesn't matter -- that both the original human and the machine-borne copy are equally "alive" and identify themselves as the same person. On the other hand, you also seem to believe that the original consciousness does not continue in the machine -- that even though the copy does experience the illusion of continuity, somehow the original does not experience any such thing.
This leads me to ask, why not? If you accept that information encoded as various memories completely defines identity, what part of the original person's identity does not survive?
If something else is necessary to define identity in addition to memories, what is it? If it is measurable, why can't it be transferred to the machine? If it is not measurable, how can you be so sure that it exists?
Well, actually it's offensive and immoral. It's one thing to accept a fellow human being and be tolerant in spite of their faults. It's something else to actively endorse these problems, especially those that engage in destructive, rude, immoral and offensive conduct.
I agree. That's why I support your right to be a homophobe, but do not endorse your desire to legislate your particular version of aesthetics and morality. It's why I cannot endorse your desire to impose your subjective standards of living on everyone else just because you can't appreciate the sea of perspectives that exists beyond your little bubble.
Who are you to call homosexuality a problem? By what measure is it a problem? Who is harmed?
Oh wait, don't tell me. You have God on your side. That makes you right and everyone else wrong. Well guess what, I have God on my side too! That's right, I'm a prophet and I've started my own religion. It's called the Church of Squiffy. Hogwash, you say? Prove it.
That's the thing. Faith. My faith says that homosexual marriage is a-okay, and it's *every* *bit* as strong as your faith that says it's not. Who the hell are you to suggest that your faith should legally trump anyone else's? What, you have a Book? I could write a Book that would make way more sense to the common reader than any old text you have.
Perhaps you have some psychological argument that calls homosexuality an illness. If so, then the APA disagrees with you.
Have I put words in your mouth? Sorry if I did. I have a sense that I'm spot-on, though. Besides, what I've said goes out to everyone behind the Homophobic Curtain, including the great portion of you who are tired of the separation of church and state.
And while I'm on the soapbox, let me also say that I'm from the U.S. I'm proud of my nation's Constitution as it stands and I didn't vote for the throwback that we currently have in office. To all of you who watched our elections from afar, powerless to do anything about them, please believe that we aren't all a bunch of nutjobs!
Yeah? How many scientists burn incense at the altar of Murphy?
You can't be serious.
Murphy's Law is a joke. You know, the kind of thing that people say to make other people laugh? Scientists invoke Murphy when they consciously want to be silly.
That argument is completely daft. We are able to think critically regardless of how that ability came about. The Scientific Method works, whether or not it's an accident.
Those who question the efficacy of the Scientific Method seem to be overlooking Schroedinger's equation, the Standard Model, modern medicine, weather forecasts, landing a frickin' space probe on *Mars*...please.
' "How much less theological could one be? How could one be much less theological?" By not talking about what god does or does not do. '
Okay, now back to public schools. It's been about 15 years since I went to high school, but I don't recall any of my teachers mentioning God or a lack thereof, or any sort of miracles or lack thereof, except in response to a question by one of the students or as part of curriculum that abstractly discussed various peoples' belief systems. That seems to me like sufficient avoidance of theological matters for the state to claim a separation between its school and the church.
Do you agree? What evangelism of secular humanism, blatant or subtle, have you seen in public schools?
Slashdot Mirror
Witness.
Too bad there's no such thing as "+1 Flamebait".
Ah ha! So *he's* the one they were talking to in those songs! I always wondered about that.
I think you're thinking of the number of synapses. The number of neurons is more like 100 billion. link
You're just mincing words now. e^(a ln r) is not what the technically inclined call 'exponential' because there's a logarithm in the exponent. What you're doing is akin to saying f(r) = r is a sinusoidal function because r = sin(arcsin(r)), or that it's a quartic function because r = (r^(1/4))^4.
...at least where this sale is concerned. I already bought my HP Pavilion (w/ Athlon64) and am happy as a clam with it.
I used to work in Special Collections at UCSB. It's a nice facility and my boss was really cool. (He introduced me to Mogwai and Do Make Say Think.) He was responsible for getting some (all?) of the cylinders being presented online. He really went out of his way, too. Some of the cylinders he got were turn-of-the-century recordings from some middle eastern country (Afghanistan? I forget which). The labels were all in Arabic. It was really neat to see them up close! I got to play with some nice reel-to-reel players too.
The sibling post has it right. There would have been different settings for every cylinder. And the less you process the sound, the less of a chance there is of worsening the distortion. It might sound cleaner, but you might have messed up the signal a little while clearing out the noise. It was for this reason that when we made CDs of our old acrylic and aluminum 78s, the only processing done was to amplify it as much as possible without letting it clip.
Is there a place where all the groups that have names are listed, in a sort of catalog form? I keep finding references to various groups like SU(3) and the alternating group A5, and the names themselves give no sense of the structure of the given group. Once and for all I'd like to be able to read brief definitions of all of these named groups so when I see one I know what the heck they're talking about.
Furthermore, is there a catalog of various named algebraic objects, like groups, subgroups, monoids, rings, fields, etc.?
I've always preferred x = -b/2a +- sqrt((b/2a)^2 - c/a).
You might also want to call attron(A_BOLD) in your display initialization function. It makes everything much easier to see.
Stealth, stealth, stealth, stealth, stealth, stealth, stealth, stealth, beans, and stealth.
And while I'm at it, I might as well say something that gets me around the lameness filter. I believe this ought to suffice.
What about this? These people seem to think gravity might be described as a side effect of electromagnetism.
Why a blanket of dirt? Why not just make the dome thicker? I mean, if you're going to add any load at all, shouldn't you add load that also offers structural support?
Slightly off-topic:
So they still haven't observed the graviton and are still having trouble explaining why.
What I'd like to know is, why aren't physicists trying harder to explain gravity as a "pseudo-force" like the centrifugal "force" and the Coriolis effect? That's not just a rhetorical question. What makes physicists so sure that the graviton even exists? I trust that there must be some deep reasoning involved -- what is it?
I agree completely. The poster I was responding to didn't seem to have a strong enough argument for his/her claim that the original definitely did not experience continuity. I'm still not convinced other way.
I do lean in the other direction from that poster, though. Somehow I'm influenced by my personal answer to the question, "Why am I me and not someone else?" The way I see it, if I were someone else, I wouldn't know the difference. It's not so much that I am me, it's that there is a guy who uses the alias "Squiffy" who is self-aware, so of course his experience is going to seem intensely personal for him. It's the same for everyone. The "me that is me" is me *exactly* because of my experiences.
You seem to accept the notion that the substrate doesn't matter -- that both the original human and the machine-borne copy are equally "alive" and identify themselves as the same person. On the other hand, you also seem to believe that the original consciousness does not continue in the machine -- that even though the copy does experience the illusion of continuity, somehow the original does not experience any such thing.
This leads me to ask, why not? If you accept that information encoded as various memories completely defines identity, what part of the original person's identity does not survive?
If something else is necessary to define identity in addition to memories, what is it? If it is measurable, why can't it be transferred to the machine? If it is not measurable, how can you be so sure that it exists?
It's not easy, but if you find *all* of the letters in bold, you get "GASAKIKETODAY". Gas a kike today -- as in Auschwitz.
I move to drown this bastard in sewage.
Well, actually it's offensive and immoral. It's one thing to accept a fellow human being and be tolerant in spite of their faults. It's something else to actively endorse these problems, especially those that engage in destructive, rude, immoral and offensive conduct.
I agree. That's why I support your right to be a homophobe, but do not endorse your desire to legislate your particular version of aesthetics and morality. It's why I cannot endorse your desire to impose your subjective standards of living on everyone else just because you can't appreciate the sea of perspectives that exists beyond your little bubble.
Who are you to call homosexuality a problem? By what measure is it a problem? Who is harmed?
Oh wait, don't tell me. You have God on your side. That makes you right and everyone else wrong. Well guess what, I have God on my side too! That's right, I'm a prophet and I've started my own religion. It's called the Church of Squiffy. Hogwash, you say? Prove it.
That's the thing. Faith. My faith says that homosexual marriage is a-okay, and it's *every* *bit* as strong as your faith that says it's not. Who the hell are you to suggest that your faith should legally trump anyone else's? What, you have a Book? I could write a Book that would make way more sense to the common reader than any old text you have.
Perhaps you have some psychological argument that calls homosexuality an illness. If so, then the APA disagrees with you.
Have I put words in your mouth? Sorry if I did. I have a sense that I'm spot-on, though. Besides, what I've said goes out to everyone behind the Homophobic Curtain, including the great portion of you who are tired of the separation of church and state.
And while I'm on the soapbox, let me also say that I'm from the U.S. I'm proud of my nation's Constitution as it stands and I didn't vote for the throwback that we currently have in office. To all of you who watched our elections from afar, powerless to do anything about them, please believe that we aren't all a bunch of nutjobs!
Yeah? How many scientists burn incense at the altar of Murphy?
You can't be serious.
Murphy's Law is a joke. You know, the kind of thing that people say to make other people laugh? Scientists invoke Murphy when they consciously want to be silly.
That argument is completely daft. We are able to think critically regardless of how that ability came about. The Scientific Method works, whether or not it's an accident.
Those who question the efficacy of the Scientific Method seem to be overlooking Schroedinger's equation, the Standard Model, modern medicine, weather forecasts, landing a frickin' space probe on *Mars*...please.
Since we use a small fraction of our brain
No. We use all of it.
If everything goes right we'll be showing Titan our "O" rings. O! O!
Oh geeze, where are my mod points?
Soylent Green II: Soylent White
They didn't change the recipe like they said they were going to -- it's STILL PEOPLLLLLLE!!!
The answer doesn't have anything to do with sequence. One you find the answer it will all add up.
What? If you're orbiting above the atmosphere, where is the drag coming from?
Besides, atmospheric drag will cause a stable orbit to degenerate.
' "How much less theological could one be? How could one be much less theological?" By not talking about what god does or does not do. '
Okay, now back to public schools. It's been about 15 years since I went to high school, but I don't recall any of my teachers mentioning God or a lack thereof, or any sort of miracles or lack thereof, except in response to a question by one of the students or as part of curriculum that abstractly discussed various peoples' belief systems. That seems to me like sufficient avoidance of theological matters for the state to claim a separation between its school and the church.
Do you agree? What evangelism of secular humanism, blatant or subtle, have you seen in public schools?