The scientific method in general terms consists of observation, then hypothesis, then designing an experiment to prove the hypothesis.
No! You never design an experiment to prove the hypothesis, you design an experiment to disprove it.
No. OP was correct. You are correct in saying that you design an experiment that can disprove it. You are incorrect in saying OP was wrong or that what you're saying in any way contradicts what OP said. OP said what you, you then described how you do it. You confirm a theory by designing an experiment which could contradict it, and then demonstrating that it does not, because that's how you "prove" a hypothesis. ("Confirm" would be the correct word here -- theories are never proven, but experiments "confirm" them, which in a scientific context does not mean "prove".)
There's only one reason why a single moderator would spend that many mod points on down-modding a single post
No single moderator did, since no single moderator possibly could. It takes at minimum four moderators to move a post from +3 to -1.
In the interest of fairness, I urge you to read my comment [slashdot.org]. Whether or not the down-mod is undone, it deserves at least that much consideration.
I doubt it. Posting off-topic about it just makes you sound like a complete idiot. It's not worth the time to read. (And this coming from someone who thinks both communists and libertarians are obviously morons.)
But they have not ever released any of their data to the community (and hold patents on the type of crystal they use for their detector) so it's impossible to directly verify.
And thus is not, in any way even remotely, scientific. Why are we discussing pseudo-science in an article about actual science (what always deals exclusively with the realm of what's verifiable/falsifiable)?
I'm not saying either of those are the cause of this, but there is good reason to squint hard at anything claiming "seasonal evidence" when the claim is extrordainary (in the sense that it is way off from any model).
But the point you're criticizing here (seasonal variation) is not extraordinary in the sense you say -- it is, in fact, exactly what the model suggests we should see. It's doubly not-surprising in that it's confirm rather than contradicting another experiment which showed the exact same thing. The only thing surprising in the result is the lighter mass than predicted.
It should also be noted that, and this should really come as no surprise to everyone, most of the Ph.D.'s and grad students doing the experiment although thought of the concerns obvious to an undergrad.
No it isn't, in a stand alone complex there is no 'us' unlike with Anonymous who's media releases reference 'we' or 'us' and the actions of participating individuals are far from being unrelated like they are in a stand alone complex.
You sure about that?
If you are, you must be one of the participating individuals, and it a position to verify that all the actions by "Anonymous" to date have been by your group and not by copy-cats like in SAC. If you aren't, then you have no possible way of knowing if they are or not.
Yup, looks like OP was right -- you need to rewatch it.:) Aoi was never able to determine the origin of that file, and we'd have to know a lot more about where that file came from, and ever after knowing that, where the author of the file got the information from, to ever know whether he was the "original" or yet another in a chain. Maybe there was an "original Laughing Man", but Aoi didn't think so, and we'd certainly need to know a lot more than we do to judge whether the author of that file was it.
I hear this "does not preserve the freedoms" thing all the time from pro-GPL folks. It seems like they honestly believe that a commercial company can take existing GPL code, incorporate it into a product, and then magically the GPL code can no longer be used by open-source folks anymore.
If this is what it seems like to you, it's clear that although you hear these people, you don't understand what they're saying.
Sure, any contribution that the commercial entity made to the GPL'd code base won't be shared back. But they wrote the code, not you, and it should be the developers' prerogative on whether they wish to share any code with anyone. You still have the original source code anyway.
That's precisely the point. It should be developers' prerogative. It's my prerogative to only share my code with people willing to share in return. The GPL enables that, and if you claim freedom is at all important, you should be glad that I'm free to make this choice, whereas other people may prefer a different choice (and use a BSD license as a consequence). Arguing that I should give up my freedom to share my code only with people I want so that others than share their code only with people they want (and I'm not one of them) is ridiculously hypocritical.
The military supposedly recovered a lot of digital information (hard drives, DVDs, flash drives, etc.) over there. I'm wondering how Osama reconciled the use of computers with his anti-Western beliefs (which I assume includes Western technology).
Same way you reconcile your use of the same with your pro-democracy and anti-Communist beliefs (given most of this stuff is made in China), assuming you have such (of not, substitute "most westerners" for "you"). Also, feel free to substitute in beliefs about humane treatment of workers, or respect for the environment, and swap out the specific products to whatever else you use that's primarily made in third world nations.
Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing until Wikileaks pointed out we knew something about someone who may know something. Where's the line between cautious and negligent?
Negligent would be drawing conclusions like "we know where he is" based on the information we had three years ago, or listening to obviously unqualified idiots who would conclude we've known where he was for the past 3 years based on the couple of scraps of data mentioned, as you just did here.
If it's true what they've been saying about the motherload of intelligence they uncovered after the raid, then bin Laden has been a lot more than a symbolic leader of Al-Qaeda. And this is the person who masterminded a number of successful attacks on the US, one of them quite spectacularly successful. Losing him is a major loss for Al-Qaeda, regardless of what the average soldier is fighting for, if he was at all an effective strategist for them, and it's really, really hard to argue that he wasn't given his track record.
There isn't one, save whatever argument you yourself would like to make, based on the facts as reported. Facts do not, in and of themselves, form an argument, although you can tell a person's biases by their tendency to see certain facts as making an argument when they're just facts. The more biased they are, the more likely they are to perceive bias and an implied argument in an unbiased presentation of facts. This reached its most amusing heights on/. recently when people objected strenuously whenever the media did something as simple as make an unquestionably factual statement of objectively measurable facts about current radiation levels around a certain nuclear plant.
If you decide to send your DNA sample to a professional lab for testing, it will take your three to five business days to get your result, yes. But I'm assuming the US government has the equipment and expertise to do the testing themselves, rather than drop a sample off with FedEx and wait a few days like the rest of us schmucks.
They say timing is everything. It is funny that we held Saddam's sons bodies for 11 days, but decided to bury OBL at sea withing 24 hours, even though he is/was the highest priority target we had...
Actually, it's not. You're not thinking very hard if you can't think of at least two very good reasons why we wouldn't want to hang on to the body that long, or why these two situations are very different from each other (I hang on to old cheese for months, but that isn't relevant here, either).
Dude, your problem is your idea of "getting away from it all" is warped, in that you're twittering every 30 minutes when you see a F-ing airplane. Give your cellphone a burial at sea, then chill on a lawn chair (they have those in pakistan, right?) with a religiously appropriate mood enhancing substance and enjoy the solitude.
And if your religion doesn't approve of mood enhancing substances, it's time to find a better religion.;)
I think you're repeating the oft-made mistake here of thinking the operation in Iraq had something to do with the "War on Terror". Fact of the matter is, most of the "trillions" being quoted was spent on the war in Iraq when it would have been much better spent one something at least somewhat related to the war with Al-Qaeda, rather than furthering their goals (Osama thought Saddam was about as evil as people come -- regime change in Baghdad was on both the US and Al-Qaeda's wish lists).
You clearly never had to get animal control to get rid of a (possibly) rabid raccoon. When it's gone forever, you celebrate.
I never celebrate the death of a wild animal, especially when I'm the one responsible for it, as I have been, on multiple occasions. Believe it or not, you are not the center of the universe. Just because someone does not react to an experience the way you did does not mean they've never experienced it.
but don't worry my friend. you are completely untouchable and terrorism has absolutely no meaning in your life. don't worry your pretty little head about it. put your head back in the cloud, because we all know you are above it all
The truly disturbing thing here is that there are so many people like you who assume you must either have an absurdly overblown view against something, or an absurdly overblown view in the opposite direction. There's no room for a rational opinion here in your mind. If someone doesn't share your irrational levels of hated, you assume they must have the absurd opinions you're lampooning here. But you're arguing with a straw-man. He never said he's untouchable, that terrorism isn't a problem, has no meaning, is nothing to worry about, or that he's above it all. Your own absurd levels of irrationality become obvious when you assume anyone who doesn't over-blow the situation must think it doesn't exist at all. To you, everyone must be an extremist. If they don't agree with your extreme, they must be extreme in the other direction. No don't even believe someone can have a rational, balanced viewpoint, that it even exists.
Slashdot Mirror
The scientific method in general terms consists of observation, then hypothesis, then designing an experiment to prove the hypothesis.
No! You never design an experiment to prove the hypothesis, you design an experiment to disprove it.
No. OP was correct. You are correct in saying that you design an experiment that can disprove it. You are incorrect in saying OP was wrong or that what you're saying in any way contradicts what OP said. OP said what you, you then described how you do it. You confirm a theory by designing an experiment which could contradict it, and then demonstrating that it does not, because that's how you "prove" a hypothesis. ("Confirm" would be the correct word here -- theories are never proven, but experiments "confirm" them, which in a scientific context does not mean "prove".)
There's only one reason why a single moderator would spend that many mod points on down-modding a single post
No single moderator did, since no single moderator possibly could. It takes at minimum four moderators to move a post from +3 to -1.
In the interest of fairness, I urge you to read my comment [slashdot.org]. Whether or not the down-mod is undone, it deserves at least that much consideration.
I doubt it. Posting off-topic about it just makes you sound like a complete idiot. It's not worth the time to read. (And this coming from someone who thinks both communists and libertarians are obviously morons.)
But they have not ever released any of their data to the community (and hold patents on the type of crystal they use for their detector) so it's impossible to directly verify.
And thus is not, in any way even remotely, scientific. Why are we discussing pseudo-science in an article about actual science (what always deals exclusively with the realm of what's verifiable/falsifiable)?
s/although/already/
I'm not saying either of those are the cause of this, but there is good reason to squint hard at anything claiming "seasonal evidence" when the claim is extrordainary (in the sense that it is way off from any model).
But the point you're criticizing here (seasonal variation) is not extraordinary in the sense you say -- it is, in fact, exactly what the model suggests we should see. It's doubly not-surprising in that it's confirm rather than contradicting another experiment which showed the exact same thing. The only thing surprising in the result is the lighter mass than predicted.
It should also be noted that, and this should really come as no surprise to everyone, most of the Ph.D.'s and grad students doing the experiment although thought of the concerns obvious to an undergrad.
The reason dark matter has been the "missing mass" for so long is that Minnesotans have been hording it for ourselves. Sorry...
If so, then it is indeed difficult to pin any particular action or crime upon its body for prosecution...
You don't prosecute organizations in criminal matters. You prosecute individuals.
No it isn't, in a stand alone complex there is no 'us' unlike with Anonymous who's media releases reference 'we' or 'us' and the actions of participating individuals are far from being unrelated like they are in a stand alone complex.
You sure about that?
If you are, you must be one of the participating individuals, and it a position to verify that all the actions by "Anonymous" to date have been by your group and not by copy-cats like in SAC. If you aren't, then you have no possible way of knowing if they are or not.
Yup, looks like OP was right -- you need to rewatch it. :) Aoi was never able to determine the origin of that file, and we'd have to know a lot more about where that file came from, and ever after knowing that, where the author of the file got the information from, to ever know whether he was the "original" or yet another in a chain. Maybe there was an "original Laughing Man", but Aoi didn't think so, and we'd certainly need to know a lot more than we do to judge whether the author of that file was it.
I hear this "does not preserve the freedoms" thing all the time from pro-GPL folks. It seems like they honestly believe that a commercial company can take existing GPL code, incorporate it into a product, and then magically the GPL code can no longer be used by open-source folks anymore.
If this is what it seems like to you, it's clear that although you hear these people, you don't understand what they're saying.
Sure, any contribution that the commercial entity made to the GPL'd code base won't be shared back. But they wrote the code, not you, and it should be the developers' prerogative on whether they wish to share any code with anyone. You still have the original source code anyway.
That's precisely the point. It should be developers' prerogative. It's my prerogative to only share my code with people willing to share in return. The GPL enables that, and if you claim freedom is at all important, you should be glad that I'm free to make this choice, whereas other people may prefer a different choice (and use a BSD license as a consequence). Arguing that I should give up my freedom to share my code only with people I want so that others than share their code only with people they want (and I'm not one of them) is ridiculously hypocritical.
sudo apt-get purge cli-common mono-runtime
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it's unfortunately necessary rubbish for my work. :(
You cannot bitch about one companies supposedly insane approach to patents while ignoring another's.
You not only can, you have to. It may not be Twitter, but even /. has message length limits.
The military supposedly recovered a lot of digital information (hard drives, DVDs, flash drives, etc.) over there. I'm wondering how Osama reconciled the use of computers with his anti-Western beliefs (which I assume includes Western technology).
Same way you reconcile your use of the same with your pro-democracy and anti-Communist beliefs (given most of this stuff is made in China), assuming you have such (of not, substitute "most westerners" for "you"). Also, feel free to substitute in beliefs about humane treatment of workers, or respect for the environment, and swap out the specific products to whatever else you use that's primarily made in third world nations.
It's called hiding in plain sight. Think of it like playing Where's Waldo, just instead of a funny shirt you look out for a face eating beard.
Spotting the guy with a face eating beard isn't as easy in Pakistan as it is in Delaware.
Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing until Wikileaks pointed out we knew something about someone who may know something. Where's the line between cautious and negligent?
Negligent would be drawing conclusions like "we know where he is" based on the information we had three years ago, or listening to obviously unqualified idiots who would conclude we've known where he was for the past 3 years based on the couple of scraps of data mentioned, as you just did here.
If it's true what they've been saying about the motherload of intelligence they uncovered after the raid, then bin Laden has been a lot more than a symbolic leader of Al-Qaeda. And this is the person who masterminded a number of successful attacks on the US, one of them quite spectacularly successful. Losing him is a major loss for Al-Qaeda, regardless of what the average soldier is fighting for, if he was at all an effective strategist for them, and it's really, really hard to argue that he wasn't given his track record.
So what's the argument here?
There isn't one, save whatever argument you yourself would like to make, based on the facts as reported. Facts do not, in and of themselves, form an argument, although you can tell a person's biases by their tendency to see certain facts as making an argument when they're just facts. The more biased they are, the more likely they are to perceive bias and an implied argument in an unbiased presentation of facts. This reached its most amusing heights on /. recently when people objected strenuously whenever the media did something as simple as make an unquestionably factual statement of objectively measurable facts about current radiation levels around a certain nuclear plant.
If you decide to send your DNA sample to a professional lab for testing, it will take your three to five business days to get your result, yes. But I'm assuming the US government has the equipment and expertise to do the testing themselves, rather than drop a sample off with FedEx and wait a few days like the rest of us schmucks.
They say timing is everything. It is funny that we held Saddam's sons bodies for 11 days, but decided to bury OBL at sea withing 24 hours, even though he is/was the highest priority target we had...
Actually, it's not. You're not thinking very hard if you can't think of at least two very good reasons why we wouldn't want to hang on to the body that long, or why these two situations are very different from each other (I hang on to old cheese for months, but that isn't relevant here, either).
Dude, your problem is your idea of "getting away from it all" is warped, in that you're twittering every 30 minutes when you see a F-ing airplane. Give your cellphone a burial at sea, then chill on a lawn chair (they have those in pakistan, right?) with a religiously appropriate mood enhancing substance and enjoy the solitude.
And if your religion doesn't approve of mood enhancing substances, it's time to find a better religion. ;)
This tops Radovan Karadzic's disguise by a long shot.
In audacity, perhaps, but not in style.
I think you're repeating the oft-made mistake here of thinking the operation in Iraq had something to do with the "War on Terror". Fact of the matter is, most of the "trillions" being quoted was spent on the war in Iraq when it would have been much better spent one something at least somewhat related to the war with Al-Qaeda, rather than furthering their goals (Osama thought Saddam was about as evil as people come -- regime change in Baghdad was on both the US and Al-Qaeda's wish lists).
The Soviets also won the Cold War. Whose system of government do we operate under by default in the US? Hint: It's not the American one.
lol... I can't tell if you're a troll or just really that stupid.
You clearly never had to get animal control to get rid of a (possibly) rabid raccoon. When it's gone forever, you celebrate.
I never celebrate the death of a wild animal, especially when I'm the one responsible for it, as I have been, on multiple occasions. Believe it or not, you are not the center of the universe. Just because someone does not react to an experience the way you did does not mean they've never experienced it.
but don't worry my friend. you are completely untouchable and terrorism has absolutely no meaning in your life. don't worry your pretty little head about it. put your head back in the cloud, because we all know you are above it all
The truly disturbing thing here is that there are so many people like you who assume you must either have an absurdly overblown view against something, or an absurdly overblown view in the opposite direction. There's no room for a rational opinion here in your mind. If someone doesn't share your irrational levels of hated, you assume they must have the absurd opinions you're lampooning here. But you're arguing with a straw-man. He never said he's untouchable, that terrorism isn't a problem, has no meaning, is nothing to worry about, or that he's above it all. Your own absurd levels of irrationality become obvious when you assume anyone who doesn't over-blow the situation must think it doesn't exist at all. To you, everyone must be an extremist. If they don't agree with your extreme, they must be extreme in the other direction. No don't even believe someone can have a rational, balanced viewpoint, that it even exists.