A statement like... is highly misleading in the framework of Special Relativity
But it's also perfectly reasonable in the framework of an article about a celestial event that occurred on our intergalactic doorstep at no great relative velocity. You didn't even need to go as far as you did - surely the mere phrase "It lies 168,000 light years away" is equally misleading in the light of SR.
It is just a question of the observer's frame of reference (that's why it is called "Relativity").
While you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, I don't think it's too churlish to allow the frame of reference to go unspecified.
But there is even a frame of reference that puts these two events at the same spot in space and time!
Same spot in space, or same spot in time. But not both, surely?
It's amazing how much that sneaky little minus sign (right before c^2, it's in bold here but you'd never know it) implies for our universe. Have you read The Clockwork Rocket?
The fact that the deformation of the rubber sheet is caused by gravity acting on a mass is just a matter of convenience. You could do the demonstration in outer space using a magnetic field and metal balls, or attach pieces of elastic of various lengths between points on the sheet and the floor, or use some other force as your stand-in for grav-... for whatever it is that fundamentally causes spacetime to deform in the presence of mass. The trouble is we don't really have that many forces to play with, and gravity is the most convenient one.
What's "Reductio" by itself? Are you still talking about reductio ad absurdum? I ask because you sometimes seem determined to be amiguous.
which is an error in reducing arguments as required by the Socratic Method.
R. a. d. is not an error (if that's even what you're trying to say). It's a perfectly valid logical tool. Do you agree with that or not? It's really hard to tell.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument... this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.
For the sake of clarity, which (if either) of these statements do you believe to be true:
1) Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument 2) Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy
I could not find the speech by the quantum developer, but you can search.
If you can't find it, I'm not going to have much luck (and already haven't).
I realize that thinking can be very difficult, but Wiki lists "reductio ad hitlerum (which is not in any of my text books)" as a genetic fallacy. Do you really think that the level of reduction to something absurd can only be with Hitler references? Come now, you can't be daft.
When did I say anything about Hitler? What has reductio ad hitlerum got to do with any of this? What does the question in bold mean? Are you trying to argue that because there's a fallacy named after r. a. d., then it must be a fallacy itself?
Just because a logical tool can be abused, doesn't make it a fallacy.
and remember that the two other points I started with were correct (even though you claimed one was false).
Making two correct points doesn't mean I should accept your third without evidence. Continually harping back to an error I've apologised for isn't exactly ingenuous either.
Comparing a lack of knowledge (what I stated) to someone having superpowers (your counter to my statement) is illogical
That's not what I did. What lack of knowledge? You claimed knowledge when you stated "we can change quantum events by thinking about them" as a fact. I compared it to a superpower because to most people that is exactly what the ability to influence events with the power of thought alone would be. All I'm after is some evidence. If you can't put your finger on the interview (which doesn't sound like a scientific investigation in any case) just stick "I believe" on the front of that statement when you make it.
That doesn't make any sense to me, but then again I probably have as much understanding of medicine as you do (possibly more; I watch a lot of Holby City).
With luck, the immune response won't be specific enough to deal only with the alien cancer.
It would be attacking the foreign tissue because it's foreign tissue. The fact that it's cancerous might well escape the immune system altogether. Plus you're giving an already over-worked immune system a second front to fight on. And it would probably have to be exactly the same type of cancer, even if it could work.
TL:DR; the cure for cancer is not going come from a Slashdot user, unless said user also happens to be an active cancer researcher.
Not if you're never exposed to it. Likewise you won't die of appendicitis if you don't have an appendix. Cancer is a built-in failure mode of (presumably) every part of the human body.
Not if they all used to die of sleeping sickness before the age of 30.
Without knowing what did kill them and at what age, the existence of these populations might equally well support the hypothesis, might it not?
What was the life expectancy of these Pacific island or pre-Western diet African populations? Did they have anything approaching "Western" medicine for coping with all their other ailments?
Okay, after finding this (who the hell presents a security disclosure as a single PNG?!) I'll have another stab at what you're suggesting.
Suppose you have 75,000 phone numbers you want to try to link to snapchat accounts. Snapchat allows (or allowed) you to specify at least up to this amount of numbers in a single query - the only trouble is, it won't tell you which of the many results you receive is associated with which of the numbers you sent in the query.
By doing ~17 queries on subsets of the 75,000 numbers, you can associate the numbers with their snapchat accounts.
But couldn't you just send 75,000 single-number queries and get the associated accounts directly? That might be more queries but it would be a lot less data going back and forth.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's me jealous. It's been decades since I last saw even a decent comet.
I stayed out under that really amazing sky until I was shivering so badly from the cold that I couldn't hold my
:O
binoculars steady.
Whew.
A statement like ... is highly misleading in the framework of Special Relativity
But it's also perfectly reasonable in the framework of an article about a celestial event that occurred on our intergalactic doorstep at no great relative velocity. You didn't even need to go as far as you did - surely the mere phrase "It lies 168,000 light years away" is equally misleading in the light of SR.
It is just a question of the observer's frame of reference (that's why it is called "Relativity").
While you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, I don't think it's too churlish to allow the frame of reference to go unspecified.
But there is even a frame of reference that puts these two events at the same spot in space and time!
Same spot in space, or same spot in time. But not both, surely?
Or does every event overlap when you're a photon?
D = sqrt( (x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 + (z2-z1)^2 - c^2*(t2-t1)^2 )
It's amazing how much that sneaky little minus sign (right before c^2, it's in bold here but you'd never know it) implies for our universe. Have you read The Clockwork Rocket?
Now they can all go out and buy 13-year-old consoles.
Are New Technologies Undermining the Laws of War?
Yes? No? I don't know! Get out of my house!
The fact that the deformation of the rubber sheet is caused by gravity acting on a mass is just a matter of convenience. You could do the demonstration in outer space using a magnetic field and metal balls, or attach pieces of elastic of various lengths between points on the sheet and the floor, or use some other force as your stand-in for grav-... for whatever it is that fundamentally causes spacetime to deform in the presence of mass. The trouble is we don't really have that many forces to play with, and gravity is the most convenient one.
Hah, what a maroon I am. I managed to abbreviate reductio ad absurdum to "r. a. d." in my other reply. Please mentally substitute with "r. a. a."
Reductio is what you are describing,
What's "Reductio" by itself? Are you still talking about reductio ad absurdum? I ask because you sometimes seem determined to be amiguous.
which is an error in reducing arguments as required by the Socratic Method.
R. a. d. is not an error (if that's even what you're trying to say). It's a perfectly valid logical tool. Do you agree with that or not? It's really hard to tell.
From the Wikipedia page itself:
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument ... this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.
For the sake of clarity, which (if either) of these statements do you believe to be true:
1) Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument
2) Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy
I could not find the speech by the quantum developer, but you can search.
If you can't find it, I'm not going to have much luck (and already haven't).
I realize that thinking can be very difficult, but Wiki lists "reductio ad hitlerum (which is not in any of my text books)" as a genetic fallacy. Do you really think that the level of reduction to something absurd can only be with Hitler references? Come now, you can't be daft.
When did I say anything about Hitler? What has reductio ad hitlerum got to do with any of this? What does the question in bold mean? Are you trying to argue that because there's a fallacy named after r. a. d., then it must be a fallacy itself?
Just because a logical tool can be abused, doesn't make it a fallacy.
and remember that the two other points I started with were correct (even though you claimed one was false).
Making two correct points doesn't mean I should accept your third without evidence. Continually harping back to an error I've apologised for isn't exactly ingenuous either.
Comparing a lack of knowledge (what I stated) to someone having superpowers (your counter to my statement) is illogical
That's not what I did. What lack of knowledge? You claimed knowledge when you stated "we can change quantum events by thinking about them" as a fact. I compared it to a superpower because to most people that is exactly what the ability to influence events with the power of thought alone would be. All I'm after is some evidence. If you can't put your finger on the interview (which doesn't sound like a scientific investigation in any case) just stick "I believe" on the front of that statement when you make it.
Mankind has spent most of its time on this rock looking at the wonders of nature and deciding - until he knew better - that God/aliens did it.
Maybe we have found aliens several times over, only we can't currently comprehend that we have.
Yeah, maybe. Probably not, though.
Researchers: Global Risk of Supervolcano Eruption Greater Than Previously Though
Though what? It'll only blow up America? There's a plan to move to Mars? I need closure!
I read this several years ago.
And have you read anything about it since?
he forgot a word.
Which word? "Not"?
If you're not paying for something, that's not the product. You are the product.
I feel dirty and cheap. And insufficiently remunerated.
Hey YouTube, how about letting us have 50/60fps first?
homeopathic quack
Redundant.
That doesn't make any sense to me, but then again I probably have as much understanding of medicine as you do (possibly more; I watch a lot of Holby City).
With luck, the immune response won't be specific enough to deal only with the alien cancer.
It would be attacking the foreign tissue because it's foreign tissue. The fact that it's cancerous might well escape the immune system altogether. Plus you're giving an already over-worked immune system a second front to fight on. And it would probably have to be exactly the same type of cancer, even if it could work.
TL:DR; the cure for cancer is not going come from a Slashdot user, unless said user also happens to be an active cancer researcher.
Not if you're never exposed to it. Likewise you won't die of appendicitis if you don't have an appendix. Cancer is a built-in failure mode of (presumably) every part of the human body.
Thanks. Now I have to explain why I just snorted at work.
Everyone will get septicemia from complications of an ingrown toenail unless they die of something else first.
Well nuts to you, cos I'm a-gonna cut off mah feet.
If it makes the front page of Slashdot in 2014, it has by definition already made the front page somewhere else in 2013.
This simple fact undermines the above hypothesis.
Not if they all used to die of sleeping sickness before the age of 30.
Without knowing what did kill them and at what age, the existence of these populations might equally well support the hypothesis, might it not?
What was the life expectancy of these Pacific island or pre-Western diet African populations? Did they have anything approaching "Western" medicine for coping with all their other ailments?
Yahoo Advertising Serves Up Malware For Thousands
The attack, which lasted several days... the infection rate was at about 27,000 infections per hour.
That's nearly 2 million at least. C'mon Slashdot, it's not like you to supply a less sensational headline than necessary.
You misunderstand that I was going for cheap laugh with a silly joke.
a set of contact lenses that are designed to augment a user's vision.
Isn't that what all contact lenses do?
Okay, after finding this (who the hell presents a security disclosure as a single PNG?!) I'll have another stab at what you're suggesting.
Suppose you have 75,000 phone numbers you want to try to link to snapchat accounts. Snapchat allows (or allowed) you to specify at least up to this amount of numbers in a single query - the only trouble is, it won't tell you which of the many results you receive is associated with which of the numbers you sent in the query.
By doing ~17 queries on subsets of the 75,000 numbers, you can associate the numbers with their snapchat accounts.
But couldn't you just send 75,000 single-number queries and get the associated accounts directly? That might be more queries but it would be a lot less data going back and forth.
I'm entirely nonplussed by your post.
Don't need 75000 queries to identif 75000 accounts
What do you mean by "identify"?
Number all the names you're interested in binary.
Snapchat usernames? Or names of humans you suspect of having a snapchat account?
In the first query, do a lookup on the (75000-65536) contacts which have a set 16th bit.
What kind of lookup are you talking about?