Could it be that the studies which show that people "see things" which are not there, misremember important events, etc. are correct? Could it be that the people reporting seeing the Virgin Mary over many centuries are wrong?
HexRei: Your first paragraph makes a lot of sense. Your second paragraph is moronic! Archimedes was reported to have created a "repeating ballista." An article in Scientific American (20 years ago??) showed that his idea worked. I have little doubt that Archimedes created (or directed the creation of) this "device." You write You seriously think this guy... could beat out a dozen or more of the best technology schools' teams that attempt to reproduce this every few years or so. It appears that MIT, which you might not consider one of "the best technology schools," showed that a collection (127?) of flat mirrors could heat wood sufficiently to cause a fire. How is this consistent with your implication that top tech. schools today could not replicate this feat? Does any failure speak more to Archimedes or to university students today?
Oh please, pretty please. Explain to me why, why in this case, Linux, in its greatest magnificient userfriendliness, doesn't surpass Windows usage when it comes to pops and moms computer?
Hey, you're right. The general public is well informed about tech issues, never is fooled by MS propaganda, understands computer security issues and mades thoughtful decisions to obtain windows. I've got it!
Because bashing windows without any objectivity
Talking about security concerns & problems with windows certainly does not reflect objective reality; after all, 95, 98, 2000, XP, etc. have never been subject to damage from automated worms, etc.
Since you know games, have you tried Wesnoth on Linux? Too bad Quake3 was never ported to Linux.
The term "dark matter" usually refers to "exotic" matter (e.g. WIMPs (= weakly interacting massive particles) were one candidate for exotic dark matter). This "vacuum energy" would then be the "dark energy".
Were you, perhaps, thinking of the
Casimir effect?
This has nothing to do with proposed theories of "dark energy."
You are ignoring his comments. I'm pretty sure I know for whom you work. However you are making me that much more certain that switching to Linux many years ago was the right idea; I would never want to deal with the likes of you.
stor: It's conservation of Karma (+1 to me, -1 to you):-). Actually I could care less about/. karma; mine has been excellent for years and, last time I looked, I don't get more pay at the university because of my karma.
But anyway, it's nice to know that you care; thanks! Of course, we would not want to remind people that there are actual benefits to using Linux (spyware? automated worms? Sorry; can't find them.)
I didn't mod it (obviously); I was just replying to comments like "This is quite true. Most slashdotters don't actually use Linux [rianjs.net]." by illustrating that AT LEAST ONE/. reader uses Linux. These games with statistics are a big joke; none of them is reliable. Under Konqueror, I can set my Browser Identification, operating system name and version number, etc. as I wish (well, I still can't find "BorgOS" - wait, I found XP!).
You really are naive. "Linux, having existed in a kinder environment"? Is the SCO-Borg environment really kinder? Do you think, maybe, just maybe, someone at McAfee or elsewhere is trying to write a Linux worm?
"is that mold isn't smart enough to know when it has to change its actions."
Since GWB is about as smart as a mold, this explains his opinions and policies. Thanks!
You replied to the statement "If it were possible, do you think we'd still be using telescopes to find new planets?" by talking about the detection of planets using gravitational measurements; thus your statement "I raised only the possibility of detecting black holes with newly possible devices on Earth" is incorrect. Earlier in this thread you did discuss the detection of black holes but here you were talking about planets.
I have not entered into any "argument" about what event counts as the "discovery of a planet".
Such discussions can go on forever; however, I believe any claims of discovery of planets should include at least some basic information. How many planets do you claim to discover? What are their properties (e.g. mass, orbital period, orbital radius)? (I picked some easy properties for you.) ETC.
I think the political and public benefit (i.e. more support for research) of the first good "photo" from our solar system (or from an unmanned probe "near" the extrasolar planet) of an extrasolar planet will be huge. I would love to see such a "photo" and I imagine humans will eventually travel to other solar systems (but not in my lifetime); I would also love "to plant a flag on a planet in a faraway system."
You don't have a PhD in astrophysics. A number of top cosmologists are essentially mathematicians (e.g. differential geometers) and astrophysics is becoming more and more "mathematical"; your criticism has little validity. You certainly don't need a PhD to post here but having experience doing published research in a "scientific field" (I include math here) does give one a valuable perspective.
So, I fail to understand the cause for your last statement.
I said There is no ``dark matter'' (i.e. exotic matter) and ``dark energy'' seems unlikely.
You seemed to object to my statement; you said "Actually... dark energy is one of the hottest fields in physics right now... I'd sure like to see the source for your statements.". Perhaps I was incorrect as viewing this as an objection to my comment; for the sake of argument, let us assume you were objecting. If you propose a new "mechanism" in physics (scalar field, whatever), you should have some reasonable explanation of how it works. Does "dark energy" arise from quantum mechanical effects? Is this a new
"Higgs Field"?
Right now "dark energy" is just a ad hoc theory for explaining observations, one form of which happens to bring back Einstein's cosmological constant. The history of physics includes many instances of ad hoc theories (e.g. steady state cosmology) which are proposed and later discarded. Based on this history, I would guess that the probability "dark energy" is correct (in the appropriate sense in physics) is less than one-half. (It is also my personal view that dark energy is not the correct explanation for current observations.)
Either you are a serious guy or not; for the sake or argument, I will assume you are a rational "scientist". (My PhD is in mathematics; if you have one, in what area is your PhD?)
So discounting gravitational discovery of planets is, at best, premature,
I was not discounting evidence from gravitational studies, etc.; rather I was asking what standard should be applied in order to be able to claim the discovery of a planet and applying the historical standard of (optical) observation. I believe this is a reasonable standard to apply; in order to meet this standard and (optically) verify the discovery of nearby planets, humans should invest more resources in astronomy and "analysis". Certainly distributed telescopes which depend on multiple instruments, precise timing, strong mathematical and statistical support, etc. offer the potential for great improvements in optical (and other areas of) astronomy. I think most people would agree that the optical verification of a new planet is the gold standard.
Doc Ruby: Sorry but you are in error. For hundreds of years, scientists have speculated about the existence of additional planets based on perturbations, etc. in the orbits of observed planets but the discovery of a planet required direct observation. There is lots of indirect evidence for solar and extrasolar planets (plus the direct observation of some, perhaps all, solar planets). We find perturbations in luminosity, etc. and hope this indicates the existence of a planet. This article, last revised in 2001, states On the other hand, the major premise, and certainly the most important, is to ascertain the existence of extrasolar planets by direct astronomical observations. Speculation is easy, scientific endeavors are not. During the past several years the astronomical techniques used for observations have become more and more sophisticated leading to precise indirect methods of detecting planetary bodies orbiting stars other than our Sun. Although the evidence is compelling for the existence of extrasolar bodies, there has been no direct observation of an extrasolar planet; i.e., a viewing of a planetary body via a telescope and/or a photograph. A number of these astronomical techniques are discussed in Section 2 and 3 of this paper.
I have not been following this closely lately; perhaps direct observations of planets has occurred by now. There is no reasonable doubt that extrasolar planets exist; the only question is the standard of proof one requires to claim "discover" of a new planet.
Dark energy is one explanation for certain observations (e.g. apparent increased acceleration at great distances). Certain string theories/M-theories offer alternative explanations for these observations; the correct theory may be completely different from string theory or dark energy. Right now dark energy is a "shot in the dark" which happens to be popular. It might be correct; everyone loves the cosmological constant. Although it has flaws, this
Wikipedia article contains some information. I hope that The_Wilschon knows the difference between "one of the hottest fields in physics right now" and "the truth."
garcia: I'm not certain of your position on this. I hope you don't think your views ("What American workers need to do is not allow their personal lives to intermingle with their daily work grind.") should be adopted by everyone. I don't think people should be forced to associate outside working hours but I think they should have the right to do so if they wish. My situation may be relatively unique (or perhaps not) but I don't have a daily work grind; even though this is not the legal arrangement, I view myself as an "independent contractor" and I consider my work to be for my benefit (and the benefit of my employer). I could "work" 15 hours per week (which almost never happens) or 70-80+ hours per week and my employer would not know the difference; of course, I am on a modest salary (over $80K) and I "work" all the time. This is not me but his description ("I like to lie down on the sofa for hours at a stretch") kind of fits my "work."
Xfig is perfect for creating figures for publications in math. Gimp, of course, is also great. I don't use Blender even though I am a
Blender Foundation Member but I may start using it in the future.
I think Brown, etc. made an inappropriate decision to withhold this information. I hope CalTech is embarrassed by this episode. I believe this contributes to the "What is a planet?" debate and whets the public's interest in astronomy. Greater interest in astronomy and interesting new discoveries might lead to increases in NASA's budget; why delay this two years?
Have the posters on slashdot gotten worse lately? "I thought no child left behind used nation wide standardized tests."
Using such tests is, of course, the solution to all academic problems. These tests would never be influenced by the success rate of students taking it. Such tests measure appropriate academic skills and knowledge. Right!
Do you think these tests tell anyone about the ability of students to be creative? to write correct and well structured mathematical proofs? to understand and appreciate great literature? Such tests may have a place in K-12 education but they should not play a major role in evaluating students nor in affecting funding. (By the way, I have no stake in K-12 funding, etc.; I am a university professor of mathematics. I see the results of the K-12 education system every fall (for 25 years). There are still very bright students but many students are coming to college inadequately prepared. For example, high school geometry has become a joke; however, this "geometry lite" is better positioned to be evaluated using a multiple choice test than was "real geometry" in the past.)
"The reason Democrats oppose this policy is they are in the pockets of teachers' labor unions."
The only reason that people or politicians would oppose a trend which is bad for the intellectual development of children and is a corrupt attempt to appear to be addressing a serious problem (without actually making the problem any less serious) is that "they are in the pockets of teachers' labor unions." I am not a fan of the NEA or of teachers' unions but this does not give Republicans, Libertarians, etc. freedom from blame when they support bad ideas. Your simplistic comments seem to identify you as the product of an inferior upbringing; perhaps you went to a private school or a public school affected by bad (Republican or Democratic) ideas about education?
It makes me sad to see that at least three people rated your post "Interesting". If you think it is so easy to "learn for yourself, by yourself" then answer this question: If a function $f$ in a bounded domain $\Omega$ is the product of a square-integrable function $g$ (in $L^{2}(\Omega)$) and a function $h$ which vanishes on the portion of $\partial\Omega$ where the limsup of $|g|$ goes to infinity, then is $f\in L^{2+\epsilon}(\Omega)$ for some $\epsilon>0$? Here all function are continuous on the open set $\Omega$. (Feel free to use Google Scholar, etc.)
Got the answer? OK, what is it? Now justify it.
Perhaps the problem is not the method of instruction but the quality of the teachers and the instructional material. Perhaps we can look at other countries to see how bad is this instructional method. (Oops, they're not doing so badly in many cases.) I guess our universities are failures too. Nobody comes to the U.S. for university work, do they? Or maybe you are wrong??
"they were all wrong"
Creationists would probably sue God; their demand would be to change the world so they are right. They hire SCO lawyers and... then realize they are in hell.
"I want to see someone come up with a computer model showing how we got from a single celled organism to us with all of the branches inbetween."
You might not be able to find a computer with enough RAM and storage space. If such a program did exist, you would just find another reason to object.
By the way, do you understand what "random" means? What about "stochastic process"? You don't necessarily end up with the same outcome when you "start" a random process. (Analogy: Suppose you have a sequence in a compact topological space. It has a convergent subsequence. Find the limit of this subsequence. Now do it again. Do you get the same limit? If the original sequence converges, then your answer is "Yes". If not and if your selection of subsequence is "ramdom", then the answer is probably "No" (depending on the details).) A realistic computer program would not yield your "Uncle Bob" and "Aunt Fran" (or even humans); it still might be an excellent model of "reality".
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be that the studies which show that people "see things" which are not there, misremember important events, etc. are correct? Could it be that the people reporting seeing the Virgin Mary over many centuries are wrong?
HexRei: Your first paragraph makes a lot of sense. Your second paragraph is moronic! Archimedes was reported to have created a "repeating ballista." An article in Scientific American (20 years ago??) showed that his idea worked. I have little doubt that Archimedes created (or directed the creation of) this "device." You write You seriously think this guy ... could beat out a dozen or more of the best technology schools' teams that attempt to reproduce this every few years or so. It appears that MIT, which you might not consider one of "the best technology schools," showed that a collection (127?) of flat mirrors could heat wood sufficiently to cause a fire. How is this consistent with your implication that top tech. schools today could not replicate this feat? Does any failure speak more to Archimedes or to university students today?
Oh please, pretty please. Explain to me why, why in this case, Linux, in its greatest magnificient userfriendliness, doesn't surpass Windows usage when it comes to pops and moms computer?
Hey, you're right. The general public is well informed about tech issues, never is fooled by MS propaganda, understands computer security issues and mades thoughtful decisions to obtain windows. I've got it!
Because bashing windows without any objectivity
Talking about security concerns & problems with windows certainly does not reflect objective reality; after all, 95, 98, 2000, XP, etc. have never been subject to damage from automated worms, etc.
Since you know games, have you tried Wesnoth on Linux? Too bad Quake3 was never ported to Linux.
The term "dark matter" usually refers to "exotic" matter (e.g. WIMPs (= weakly interacting massive particles) were one candidate for exotic dark matter).
This "vacuum energy" would then be the "dark energy".
Were you, perhaps, thinking of the Casimir effect? This has nothing to do with proposed theories of "dark energy."
You are ignoring his comments. I'm pretty sure I know for whom you work. However you are making me that much more certain that switching to Linux many years ago was the right idea; I would never want to deal with the likes of you.
stor: It's conservation of Karma (+1 to me, -1 to you) :-). Actually I could care less about /. karma; mine has been excellent for years and, last time I looked, I don't get more pay at the university because of my karma.
But anyway, it's nice to know that you care; thanks! Of course, we would not want to remind people that there are actual benefits to using Linux (spyware? automated worms? Sorry; can't find them.)
I didn't mod it (obviously); I was just replying to comments like "This is quite true. Most slashdotters don't actually use Linux [rianjs.net]." by illustrating that AT LEAST ONE /. reader uses Linux. These games with statistics are a big joke; none of them is reliable. Under Konqueror, I can set my Browser Identification, operating system name and version number, etc. as I wish (well, I still can't find "BorgOS" - wait, I found XP!).
I've used Linux at work and at home for years. No "MS updating", no "anti-virus", etc.
You really are naive. "Linux, having existed in a kinder environment"? Is the SCO-Borg environment really kinder? Do you think, maybe, just maybe, someone at McAfee or elsewhere is trying to write a Linux worm?
"is that mold isn't smart enough to know when it has to change its actions."
Since GWB is about as smart as a mold, this explains his opinions and policies. Thanks!
You replied to the statement "If it were possible, do you think we'd still be using telescopes to find new planets?" by talking about the detection of planets using gravitational measurements; thus your statement "I raised only the possibility of detecting black holes with newly possible devices on Earth" is incorrect. Earlier in this thread you did discuss the detection of black holes but here you were talking about planets.
I have not entered into any "argument" about what event counts as the "discovery of a planet".
Such discussions can go on forever; however, I believe any claims of discovery of planets should include at least some basic information. How many planets do you claim to discover? What are their properties (e.g. mass, orbital period, orbital radius)? (I picked some easy properties for you.) ETC.
I think the political and public benefit (i.e. more support for research) of the first good "photo" from our solar system (or from an unmanned probe "near" the extrasolar planet) of an extrasolar planet will be huge. I would love to see such a "photo" and I imagine humans will eventually travel to other solar systems (but not in my lifetime); I would also love "to plant a flag on a planet in a faraway system."
You don't have a PhD in astrophysics. A number of top cosmologists are essentially mathematicians (e.g. differential geometers) and astrophysics is becoming more and more "mathematical"; your criticism has little validity. You certainly don't need a PhD to post here but having experience doing published research in a "scientific field" (I include math here) does give one a valuable perspective.
So, I fail to understand the cause for your last statement.
I said There is no ``dark matter'' (i.e. exotic matter) and ``dark energy'' seems unlikely.
You seemed to object to my statement; you said "Actually... dark energy is one of the hottest fields in physics right now... I'd sure like to see the source for your statements.". Perhaps I was incorrect as viewing this as an objection to my comment; for the sake of argument, let us assume you were objecting. If you propose a new "mechanism" in physics (scalar field, whatever), you should have some reasonable explanation of how it works. Does "dark energy" arise from quantum mechanical effects? Is this a new "Higgs Field"? Right now "dark energy" is just a ad hoc theory for explaining observations, one form of which happens to bring back Einstein's cosmological constant. The history of physics includes many instances of ad hoc theories (e.g. steady state cosmology) which are proposed and later discarded. Based on this history, I would guess that the probability "dark energy" is correct (in the appropriate sense in physics) is less than one-half. (It is also my personal view that dark energy is not the correct explanation for current observations.)
Either you are a serious guy or not; for the sake or argument, I will assume you are a rational "scientist". (My PhD is in mathematics; if you have one, in what area is your PhD?)
So discounting gravitational discovery of planets is, at best, premature,
I was not discounting evidence from gravitational studies, etc.; rather I was asking what standard should be applied in order to be able to claim the discovery of a planet and applying the historical standard of (optical) observation. I believe this is a reasonable standard to apply; in order to meet this standard and (optically) verify the discovery of nearby planets, humans should invest more resources in astronomy and "analysis". Certainly distributed telescopes which depend on multiple instruments, precise timing, strong mathematical and statistical support, etc. offer the potential for great improvements in optical (and other areas of) astronomy. I think most people would agree that the optical verification of a new planet is the gold standard.
Doc Ruby: Sorry but you are in error. For hundreds of years, scientists have speculated about the existence of additional planets based on perturbations, etc. in the orbits of observed planets but the discovery of a planet required direct observation. There is lots of indirect evidence for solar and extrasolar planets (plus the direct observation of some, perhaps all, solar planets). We find perturbations in luminosity, etc. and hope this indicates the existence of a planet. This article, last revised in 2001, states
On the other hand, the major premise, and certainly the most important, is to ascertain the existence of extrasolar planets by direct astronomical observations. Speculation is easy, scientific endeavors are not. During the past several years the astronomical techniques used for observations have become more and more sophisticated leading to precise indirect methods of detecting planetary bodies orbiting stars other than our Sun. Although the evidence is compelling for the existence of extrasolar bodies, there has been no direct observation of an extrasolar planet; i.e., a viewing of a planetary body via a telescope and/or a photograph. A number of these astronomical techniques are discussed in Section 2 and 3 of this paper.
I have not been following this closely lately; perhaps direct observations of planets has occurred by now. There is no reasonable doubt that extrasolar planets exist; the only question is the standard of proof one requires to claim "discover" of a new planet.
Dark energy is one explanation for certain observations (e.g. apparent increased acceleration at great distances). Certain string theories/M-theories offer alternative explanations for these observations; the correct theory may be completely different from string theory or dark energy. Right now dark energy is a "shot in the dark" which happens to be popular. It might be correct; everyone loves the cosmological constant. Although it has flaws, this Wikipedia article contains some information. I hope that The_Wilschon knows the difference between "one of the hottest fields in physics right now" and "the truth."
There is no ``dark matter'' (i.e. exotic matter) and ``dark energy'' seems unlikely.
garcia: I'm not certain of your position on this. I hope you don't think your views ("What American workers need to do is not allow their personal lives to intermingle with their daily work grind.") should be adopted by everyone. I don't think people should be forced to associate outside working hours but I think they should have the right to do so if they wish. My situation may be relatively unique (or perhaps not) but I don't have a daily work grind; even though this is not the legal arrangement, I view myself as an "independent contractor" and I consider my work to be for my benefit (and the benefit of my employer). I could "work" 15 hours per week (which almost never happens) or 70-80+ hours per week and my employer would not know the difference; of course, I am on a modest salary (over $80K) and I "work" all the time. This is not me but his description ("I like to lie down on the sofa for hours at a stretch") kind of fits my "work."
Xfig is perfect for creating figures for publications in math. Gimp, of course, is also great. I don't use Blender even though I am a Blender Foundation Member but I may start using it in the future.
I think Brown, etc. made an inappropriate decision to withhold this information. I hope CalTech is embarrassed by this episode. I believe this contributes to the "What is a planet?" debate and whets the public's interest in astronomy. Greater interest in astronomy and interesting new discoveries might lead to increases in NASA's budget; why delay this two years?
I think (or, at least, hope) you have lost touch with reality.
Have the posters on slashdot gotten worse lately?
"I thought no child left behind used nation wide standardized tests."
Using such tests is, of course, the solution to all academic problems. These tests would never be influenced by the success rate of students taking it. Such tests measure appropriate academic skills and knowledge. Right!
Do you think these tests tell anyone about the ability of students to be creative? to write correct and well structured mathematical proofs? to understand and appreciate great literature? Such tests may have a place in K-12 education but they should not play a major role in evaluating students nor in affecting funding. (By the way, I have no stake in K-12 funding, etc.; I am a university professor of mathematics. I see the results of the K-12 education system every fall (for 25 years). There are still very bright students but many students are coming to college inadequately prepared. For example, high school geometry has become a joke; however, this "geometry lite" is better positioned to be evaluated using a multiple choice test than was "real geometry" in the past.)
"The reason Democrats oppose this policy is they are in the pockets of teachers' labor unions."
The only reason that people or politicians would oppose a trend which is bad for the intellectual development of children and is a corrupt attempt to appear to be addressing a serious problem (without actually making the problem any less serious) is that "they are in the pockets of teachers' labor unions." I am not a fan of the NEA or of teachers' unions but this does not give Republicans, Libertarians, etc. freedom from blame when they support bad ideas. Your simplistic comments seem to identify you as the product of an inferior upbringing; perhaps you went to a private school or a public school affected by bad (Republican or Democratic) ideas about education?
It makes me sad to see that at least three people rated your post "Interesting". If you think it is so easy to "learn for yourself, by yourself" then answer this question:
If a function $f$ in a bounded domain $\Omega$ is the product of a square-integrable function $g$ (in $L^{2}(\Omega)$) and a function $h$ which vanishes on the portion of $\partial\Omega$ where the limsup of $|g|$ goes to infinity, then is $f\in L^{2+\epsilon}(\Omega)$ for some $\epsilon>0$? Here all function are continuous on the open set $\Omega$. (Feel free to use Google Scholar, etc.)
Got the answer? OK, what is it? Now justify it.
Perhaps the problem is not the method of instruction but the quality of the teachers and the instructional material. Perhaps we can look at other countries to see how bad is this instructional method. (Oops, they're not doing so badly in many cases.) I guess our universities are failures too. Nobody comes to the U.S. for university work, do they? Or maybe you are wrong??
"they were all wrong" ... then realize they are in hell.
Creationists would probably sue God; their demand would be to change the world so they are right. They hire SCO lawyers and
This is like the world's shortest math joke:
"Let epsilon be less than zero."
"I want to see someone come up with a computer model showing how we got from a single celled organism to us with all of the branches inbetween."
You might not be able to find a computer with enough RAM and storage space. If such a program did exist, you would just find another reason to object.
By the way, do you understand what "random" means? What about "stochastic process"? You don't necessarily end up with the same outcome when you "start" a random process. (Analogy: Suppose you have a sequence in a compact topological space. It has a convergent subsequence. Find the limit of this subsequence. Now do it again. Do you get the same limit? If the original sequence converges, then your answer is "Yes". If not and if your selection of subsequence is "ramdom", then the answer is probably "No" (depending on the details).) A realistic computer program would not yield your "Uncle Bob" and "Aunt Fran" (or even humans); it still might be an excellent model of "reality".