Really? I point to a failed healthcare program that is extremely unpopular... I cite that it was mismanaged... and from that you conclude "I" must have a mental health issue?
A pithy comeback is its own reward, coherent or not.
it is clear that Assange or his associates would have to have installed recording devices or wiretaps in the parliament
a) It's not remotely clear even if we do accept the premise above b) If it was true he probably wouldn't be quite so surprised at finding all those recordings.
If it renders everything upside down it's not going to be very useful. If it continuously plays a fart noise at full volume it's going to be very annoying. If it summons Cthulhu it's not going to be very enjoyable for anyone. If... If... If...
Ever since Chien (who?) won the inaugural Kong Off (the what?) at Richie Knucklez Arcade Games in Flemington, NJ back in 2011, Lemay (who?)has been nipping at Chien's (who again?) heels. His guiding mission in life now, other than getting Hulked out at the gym, is annihilating Hank Chien at Donkey Kong (ah!). Last month, Motherboard (who or what?) traveled to Denver, Colorado (okay, now you're just making up words)
So me questioning the theory based on logical points
You're not questioning it, you're dismissing it. And you haven't presented any logical points, you've only claimed that such points exist (in a round-about sort of way).
What do you call yourself for having that much belief that this theory is proven?
The GP said no such thing. What is your problem with comprehending the written word?
What "other dimensions" that we can't see? There are no other dimensions that we can prove. No version of string theory have been proven, but many versions have been proven to be false. It's neat science fiction, but it is not science fact.
There are not other dimensions that we have proven yet. We may never do so, because they may not be there. But we don't know one way of the other yet, and I have never claimed otherwise.
it's a hypothetical theory based on our inability to detect and measure what's around us
No, stop being obtuse. It's based on what little we have been able to detect and measure. As we detect more and measure more, these theories will either find themselves further validated, or (much more interestingly) something which contradicts a theory will be discovered, at which point the theory will be modified or discarded.
Yet numerous physicists and mathematicians have been working on models that don't require magical dimensions to show how the Universe has been expanding and working.
Numerous alchemists spent years "working on" turning lead into gold and got nowhere.
That's unfair to these physicists you refer to, of course, and is not meant to suggest they're wrong. It's good that people are working on different models - models which may well yet turn out to be correct. But do these theories explain our observations of the universe any better than string theory? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm specifically asking you, s.petry, to tell me how these theories compare to string theory and the like.
When you treat a string of theories as factual
I don't, and never have, as you well know. When you treat theories as certainly false without evidence of their falsity, then you're not acting scientifically.
Read the work
You first.
this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted."
(you know you need to move the hive around, right?)
Are you basing that on beekeeping fact, or just on the fact that you found a picture of a truck full of beehives, which only suggests that one guy once had a reason to move a lot of beehives?
I try to take an almost ridiculously reasonable and neutral stance on most things. For example, I'd like to believe that, actually, this guy might be reasonably suspected of being a "cyber-terrorist" by the powers-that-be and the fact that he attended a cyber-security lecture is correlated to, but not direct causation for, his being stopped.
The lesson in this is NEVER carry sensitive information on you when entering an international airport.
That's not the lesson at all. This guy probably didn't have any sensitive information but that didn't stop his devices getting nicked.
The only people with lessons to learn are not the travellers but the security services unreasonably targetting them. Unfortunately, they're not interested in lessons.
Because mere possession of CP by any method warrants criminal investigation. In this case, it's not the fact that the viewers possess the videos - in fact, they probably don't, because they streamed them - but the method by which they received them which has led to them being pursued - and not by the authorities as would be the case for child porn, but by a corporation.
It would also seem to be reasonable to suggest that the videos were likely to be believed, by the viewers, to be legitimately provided, which would not be the case for CP (again, for reasons of illegality as opposed to copyright violation).
But perhaps I judged jargonburn's post too literally, and by "strange parallel" he was actually just highlighting the inevitable "bad analogy" that would crop up somewhere along the line.
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere. Extrapolate from that. Voyager indicates that the Universe is not a hologram, and a very real physical space full of objects.
This demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the holographic principle is. The theory is that the entire universe - ourselves included - are the result of a holographic process. That the "lower level" of reality underlying this one has fewer dimensions than we perceive, and our reality is "merely" a projection (note: this is an analogy. It doesn't mean to suggest there is a massive piece of photographic film floating in a lower space with a big lightbulb illuminating it).
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere.
It's pretty solid as proof goes, but it's not utterly irrefutable. Once the probes left the atmosphere the data could have been faked by a higher power. Or perhaps the solar system is real but everything outside is not. Anyway, that's a moot point because it's not the theory under discussion.
As soon as you claim "it has to be true because of string theory", it is a lie because String theory is not proven.
I haven't claimed any such thing! Why do you keep insisting that I'm claiming any of this is true?
String has it's purposes, but it's not factual
First you claim the universe does exist, then you claim string doesn't?! Hah, only kidding. You meant string theory. In which case, my response is: how do you know it's not factual?
and not provable
Not proven. Not easily falsifiable either, as I understand the current state of affairs. But they're working on it, and who's to say they won't succeed?
Claiming that I must be a Nobel recipient to argue against their hypothesis is an absurd argument.
I haven't claimed that either! Please try and read my posts fully before you reply - I've tried to show you the same courtesy.
They provided no facts, yet you are treating their work as factual.
They've provided plenty of facts in the form of mathematical demonstrations of the consistency of certain aspects of the theory.
Of course I'm treating their work as factual. They did actually do the work. What I assume you mean is I'm treating the theory as being factual, but I am doing nothing of the sort and have said so on more than one occasion.
Slashdot Mirror
And enhance!
I liked that the editorialising
ETFY.
BTW, to offer another view point and to point out that I have indeed thought this through:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-texas-father-beat-death-daughters-molester/story?id=16612071 [go.com]
This guy in Texas found a man sexually assualting his 5 year old daughter, and proceeded to beat him to death with his bare hands.
And then called an ambulance in a desparate attempt not to let the guy die. Wow. Not sure how many people would've done that.
I really hope the dad has never lost a moment's sleep over what he did.
Really? I point to a failed healthcare program that is extremely unpopular... I cite that it was mismanaged... and from that you conclude "I" must have a mental health issue?
A pithy comeback is its own reward, coherent or not.
The Netgear router has been taped to the satellite for months, but it was only last week that they were able to attach the Pringles can.
Given that the parliament is not violating laws
That's not "given" at all.
it is clear that Assange or his associates would have to have installed recording devices or wiretaps in the parliament
a) It's not remotely clear even if we do accept the premise above
b) If it was true he probably wouldn't be quite so surprised at finding all those recordings.
Even better than that...
(if you can stomach installing Silverlight)
If it renders everything upside down it's not going to be very useful.
If it continuously plays a fart noise at full volume it's going to be very annoying.
If it summons Cthulhu it's not going to be very enjoyable for anyone.
If...
If...
If...
Ever since Chien (who?) won the inaugural Kong Off (the what?) at Richie Knucklez Arcade Games in Flemington, NJ back in 2011, Lemay (who?)has been nipping at Chien's (who again?) heels. His guiding mission in life now, other than getting Hulked out at the gym, is annihilating Hank Chien at Donkey Kong (ah!). Last month, Motherboard (who or what?) traveled to Denver, Colorado (okay, now you're just making up words)
I think you greatly overestimate how much I care about who has the hi score.
Who won the stupid game?
omfg dude, you just spawned off in me!
What happens when you read things too quickly on a Friday morning.
I've also heard that the incidence of people being hit by a falling piano is up 100% this year.
You're statistically more likely to be adopted by Angelina Jolie than hit by a falling piano.
So there's that.
So me questioning the theory based on logical points
You're not questioning it, you're dismissing it. And you haven't presented any logical points, you've only claimed that such points exist (in a round-about sort of way).
What do you call yourself for having that much belief that this theory is proven?
The GP said no such thing. What is your problem with comprehending the written word?
What "other dimensions" that we can't see? There are no other dimensions that we can prove. No version of string theory have been proven, but many versions have been proven to be false. It's neat science fiction, but it is not science fact.
There are not other dimensions that we have proven yet. We may never do so, because they may not be there. But we don't know one way of the other yet, and I have never claimed otherwise.
it's a hypothetical theory based on our inability to detect and measure what's around us
No, stop being obtuse. It's based on what little we have been able to detect and measure. As we detect more and measure more, these theories will either find themselves further validated, or (much more interestingly) something which contradicts a theory will be discovered, at which point the theory will be modified or discarded.
Yet numerous physicists and mathematicians have been working on models that don't require magical dimensions to show how the Universe has been expanding and working.
Numerous alchemists spent years "working on" turning lead into gold and got nowhere.
That's unfair to these physicists you refer to, of course, and is not meant to suggest they're wrong. It's good that people are working on different models - models which may well yet turn out to be correct. But do these theories explain our observations of the universe any better than string theory? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm specifically asking you, s.petry, to tell me how these theories compare to string theory and the like.
When you treat a string of theories as factual
I don't, and never have, as you well know. When you treat theories as certainly false without evidence of their falsity, then you're not acting scientifically.
Read the work
You first.
this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted."
No, it isn't.
It seems the honeybee crowd only ever want to talk about winter losses or mortality rates, not yearly peak or average population.
Clearly honeybee numbers are actually on the rise, but they don't want us to know about it!
And I for one...
(you know you need to move the hive around, right?)
Are you basing that on beekeeping fact, or just on the fact that you found a picture of a truck full of beehives, which only suggests that one guy once had a reason to move a lot of beehives?
I'm covered in bees!
also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlctsjhIy30
but by definition if you are not human you are an animal.
Or possibly a bowl of petunias.
Stupid mon-
...my girlfriend...
Hah! You NSA boys have a got to learn about blending in on teh internets.
I try to take an almost ridiculously reasonable and neutral stance on most things. For example, I'd like to believe that, actually, this guy might be reasonably suspected of being a "cyber-terrorist" by the powers-that-be and the fact that he attended a cyber-security lecture is correlated to, but not direct causation for, his being stopped.
I'd like to believe that...
The lesson in this is NEVER carry sensitive information on you when entering an international airport.
That's not the lesson at all. This guy probably didn't have any sensitive information but that didn't stop his devices getting nicked.
The only people with lessons to learn are not the travellers but the security services unreasonably targetting them. Unfortunately, they're not interested in lessons.
Because mere possession of CP by any method warrants criminal investigation. In this case, it's not the fact that the viewers possess the videos - in fact, they probably don't, because they streamed them - but the method by which they received them which has led to them being pursued - and not by the authorities as would be the case for child porn, but by a corporation.
It would also seem to be reasonable to suggest that the videos were likely to be believed, by the viewers, to be legitimately provided, which would not be the case for CP (again, for reasons of illegality as opposed to copyright violation).
But perhaps I judged jargonburn's post too literally, and by "strange parallel" he was actually just highlighting the inevitable "bad analogy" that would crop up somewhere along the line.
Oh! Sorry, I didn't realise you were speaking in terms of being the company, not as a consumer.
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere. Extrapolate from that. Voyager indicates that the Universe is not a hologram, and a very real physical space full of objects.
This demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the holographic principle is. The theory is that the entire universe - ourselves included - are the result of a holographic process. That the "lower level" of reality underlying this one has fewer dimensions than we perceive, and our reality is "merely" a projection (note: this is an analogy. It doesn't mean to suggest there is a massive piece of photographic film floating in a lower space with a big lightbulb illuminating it).
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere.
It's pretty solid as proof goes, but it's not utterly irrefutable. Once the probes left the atmosphere the data could have been faked by a higher power. Or perhaps the solar system is real but everything outside is not. Anyway, that's a moot point because it's not the theory under discussion .
As soon as you claim "it has to be true because of string theory", it is a lie because String theory is not proven.
I haven't claimed any such thing! Why do you keep insisting that I'm claiming any of this is true?
String has it's purposes, but it's not factual
First you claim the universe does exist, then you claim string doesn't?! Hah, only kidding. You meant string theory. In which case, my response is: how do you know it's not factual?
and not provable
Not proven. Not easily falsifiable either, as I understand the current state of affairs. But they're working on it, and who's to say they won't succeed?
Claiming that I must be a Nobel recipient to argue against their hypothesis is an absurd argument.
I haven't claimed that either! Please try and read my posts fully before you reply - I've tried to show you the same courtesy.
They provided no facts, yet you are treating their work as factual.
They've provided plenty of facts in the form of mathematical demonstrations of the consistency of certain aspects of the theory.
Of course I'm treating their work as factual. They did actually do the work. What I assume you mean is I'm treating the theory as being factual, but I am doing nothing of the sort and have said so on more than one occasion.