Not bad if you are a layman, but often filled with too much sensation reporting.
I have to agree. If you're interested in science headlines, only 5% of which might eventually end up published in Nature, by all means, read New Scientist.
Most of the articles are extremely speculative, concerned more with the people and the unrefined ideas lying behind the research. Personally, I believe they have postured themselves to target this readership of non-professional scientific thinkers -- it doesn't at all pose as a peer-reviewed journal; definitely interesting, not always rigorous.
A contract consists of an agreement between two parties! If there is no "meeting of the minds", there is no contract.
Let me refer you to this, and in particular the definition of 'agreement', which is
"the bargain of the parties [...] by implication from other circumstances including course of dealing or usage of trade or course of performance as provided in this Act"
Since performance covers the transfer of payment from buyer to seller and goods from seller to buyer, this is enough to constitute agreement. Futher, this would seem to indicate that such conduct is sufficient to form a contract for sale.
You may also note that "additional terms are to be regarded as proposals for addition to the contract" for sale.
Nowhere is 'negotiation', 'two' parties, or 'meeting of minds' to be found in the uniform commercial code. Rather, 'reasonable expression of acceptance', 'conduct', 'probable', and 'ordinary course of business' do make several appearances. Your bizarre examples will never be construed as part of the contract, and I do not see how the terms being "clearly explained as an extra contractual burden before the point of sale" is not the case here.
Parties have exchanged money and goods, with terms attached. There is almost no clearer case of 'contract' and 'due consideration' without getting the lawyers involved.
If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20. If I have to take it to Quicky Lube it's about $32 (plus they try to sell me a bunch of useless stuff). Obviously TCO of the same car varies depending on the expertise and willingness of the customer to crawl underneath and get dirty.
Yet, if someone set out to use CarA in his routine life for a month, recording all costs related to the use and upkeep of that car, then did the same the next month substituting another car, CarB for CarA, and discovered that CarA cost him, say, 50% more than CarB, wouldn't you conclude that CarA likely had a higher TCO?
If the Chinese Government wanted to break into the websites of foreign powers, they probably would have broken into them all by now.
Of course, like any arms-race type situation, it's never the ability that's the issue. It's resulting exposure and response. If the Chinese government decided to break into all possible/feasible computer systems, any kind of informational and economic sanction short of a military response would be justified, nay, demanded by the governments and population of the world, and there would be no reason to hold back.
But if you say they have the ability to do so without getting fingered, I would either argue that that's simply unbelievable, or that there is no real reason other governments don't already do the same.
Others have noted that the cost of a bespoke system is lower. These slighly ignore the fact that this is aggregated over some time period, like a few months or a year, where the for most part of that time the computer may be sitting idle if there aren't jobs to fill up the time. But Sun's solution offers granular computing time for any number of CPUs at a linear rate, meaning you don't pay for the time you don't use, and you can pay for lots of CPUs without penalty. I would imagine this convenience and the additional conveniences of infrastructure, maintanence, security, updates, etc are what you're paying $1/CPU/hour for.
Since Sun is attepting to utilise economies of scale, as this gets more popular, presumably prices would become more and more accessible.
It seems you have missed the main thesis of my comment, and the comment you originally replied to (about catholic schools mainly teaching evolution). From reading your comment(s), I'm led to think that you view the teaching biological evolution (which underpins the understanding of every other branch of biology) as merely a debunking of creationism and a listing of 'facts' about evolution.
This is false, and that I believe it is false is all I was trying to convey.
Evolution simply *doesn't matter* for much of anyone outside of the related fields unless you want to indoctrinate people and push your worldview on them, the fact is evolution in its ultimate form must bow to molecular biology of which the historical development of species via molecular biology is centuries away from being understood coherently by anyone. And thats a claim I will standby 100%. Its easy enough to see through religious shenanigans with age of the earth and cosmology.
If you applied this standard to other subjects, there would be very little worthwhile material to teach our young.
Also, it is true that the higher-level effects and the lower-level mechanisms of any theory must eventually connect in a coherent and consistent manner. I will easily agree to that much. That this implies evolution is superfluous and the molecular-biological view is the most, nay the only fruitful avenue of inquiry is plainly untrue.
As to the rest of your comment, I am confused as to whether you believe that there really is a dichotomy between religion and science, or whether you think I believe it, or both, or neither. Let me just say here that I am well aware of the epistemological basis of the scientific method, and I am also aware that it is not the only standard of truth.
And evolution has what relevance to most of the job market? I'd wager maybe 10% of the jobs out there have anything that requires an *absolutely critical* understanding of evolution, and when people mean evolution they mean with respect to lineage, not cause and effects and the objective data - the actual science.
Is that your criterion of merit for a subject being taugh at school? That it be directly applicable In Real Life (TM)? The teaching of the modern synthesis at school should focus on the efforts of both Mendel and Darwin, followed by the discovery of Watson and Crick. It is the study of the method of science, analysis, critical thinking, pattern recognition, systematized experimentation. Do you not find these skills useful and necessary?
but please there is simply no way holding a simple belief can ever interfere with your knowledge of physics and chemistry or the cause and effect
This is an unfathomable opinion. You obviously value the skills and understanding that can be obtained from studying physics and chemistry, and are unable to see how that argument applies to the teaching of biological evolution.
Hmm. Time to look up the definition of falsifiable. In general, a theory is falsifiable if it makes falsifiable predictions. For example, "There will exist naturally black strawberries in the future" is not a falsifiable prediction, since at any point in time in which there aren't any black strawberries, we can still claim that they may occur sometime in the future. The prediction that massive bodies will produce an aberration of light is falsifiable (especially if you can quantify the extent of the aberration) since we can perform an observation and determine whether it conforms to or disproves our prediction.
ID has a double-disadvantage, since it doesn't make many predictions, and the ones it does (especially concerning irreducible complexity, or 'gaps' in evolutionary arguments) have counter-examples, or are outright unfalsifiable.
The Anthropic Principle may not be falsifiable either because we may never be able to sample other universes. However, it is still a valid theory.
Hmm. I don't think anyone has ever claimed it scientific (which has no real bearing on validity other than scientific validity). It is definitely a world-view that one might take when thinking about the big picture. But no one bases any results, predictions, or explanations on it (well, not seriously anyway).
Perhaps you are not a programmer. An N sized array of type T is (usually) a map from intergers from 0 to N-1 to values of type T (abstractly), or a contiguous allocation of N*sizeof(T) in some memory (concretely in, say, C). Almost all technical names have explicit, quantifiable definitions. They have meaning. WTF could 'leverging synergy' possibly mean, without or without context?
Most technical jargon localises ideas and focuses attention on specific, understandable concepts. Management jargon has the opposite effect. It throws a warm, fuzzy blanket over things, so that they are indistinguishable, inscrutable. The fact that it is impossible to affirm or deny dense political or managerial doublespeak testifies to this. Enablement, process, solution, risk, quality. These things are often used out of place, without thought or distinction. And often they are strategic, customer-focused, empowering, just in case they weren't already all-encompassing.
Clear language should allow you to point at an idea, grab it, and shake it around to see if it holds up or falls apart.
Management speak enables the prioritisation of overall strategic considerations over internal-client processes, enabling corporations to increase effectiveness in holistic socioeconomic scenarios, creating value. In other words, it lets them get away with murder.
It is not simply that the SSID is broadcast, but that it is broadcast and the AP accepts the client's authorisation request. This, in my view (and I am not a member of the judiciary, law enforcement, or legislative of any country), is de facto authorisation.
As for your last paragraph, since the ISP is in fact a bounded entity with well-delineated geography and property, and since 'walking into' is not asking for and receiving authorisation, I fear such an analogy is inappropriate.
Btw, could you give me the link from which you obtained your Florida law quote?
If you want to test this, tap into your ISP's line and start browsing from it. See how long before they notice you and send in the police. Why should wireless be any different just because you don't have to physically gain access to the line?
It is precisely for this reason that they are different! Since the medium is physically and logically accessible, how do we know it's not intentionally accessible? Protected resources are usually secured or designated by means of doors, fences, signs and the like. Wireless access points do have facilities to put up indicators, blocks, and guards in front of themselves. And yet these are unused.
What I'm trying to say is that if the boundaries aren't distinguishable, and personal ownership over the airwaves isn't even well-defined, how can there be intentional trespass? Since it is perfectly legal for someone to gain access to an open wifi network, how can the law make such distinctions?
-Tez
Re:Wood Ipod (guilt)
on
Real Wood iPod
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh, well I wasn't really addressing the arithmetic part, just the "where does it get the O2 from" part. But when I reread your GP post, I think I must have totally misread it.
To clarify for clarifications sake, it can't really be true that *all* the CO2 is released, since the tree may become trapped in sedimentary rock, and become a deposit of fossil fuel over the next few millenia. Until it's dug up and burnt.
In terms of conservation of matter (plus the fact that photosynthesis is essentially the reverse of respiration, especially in terms of waste products), if the tree is burnt, then the net amount of CO2 absorbed over its life will be equal to the CO2 released over its life plus burning.
If the tree is entirely decomposed, then all the carbon will be recycled back into the environment. But not necessarily all as CO2, since some anaerobic bacteria metabolise sugars in low oxygen conditions, producing by-products like alcohol and methane. Eventually it may all be converted back to CO2, since that is the main waste-product of burning and respiration. But this is simply a further application of the conservation of matter.
And do note that all instances of the word 'burnt' refer to some sort of perfect combustion of all fuel, leaving no soot or charcoal behind.
In other words, the post you originally replied to was a vast over-simplification.
Hrm, that makes more sense to me then it releasing more I guess. But if a tree absorbs x units of CO2, releasing y units of O2 in its lifetime, then you would assume the tree would contain x - y units of carbon. So where does it get the x - y units of O2 to synthesise the CO2 it releases?
Does it come from absorbed water, soil nutrients, etc.? I would assume there're 'running costs' associated with being a tree that would account for the use of things like that.
Look up photosynthesis and respiration. When alive, trees, like all living organisms, respire. This takes oxygen, even when the sun is out, and sugars are being produced from photosynthesis. In trees, oxygen is absorbed from the air. Look up leaf structure and stomata.
Yes, I have to agree with the OP. This stuff looked very familiar to me too. The diagrams, and worked examples were a dead giveaway.
While I'm not trying to imply intentional plagiarism (which, unfortunately I might have done in the article itself), you *really* should attribute your source here, since it really is *very* close to the original.
[...] but I do know that Pascal is a Context Free Grammar language. That what gives it an incredible compilation speed, but it also automatically means that it has very basic semantics compared to other languages [...]
I'm afraid this is not even wrong.
Context-free grammars apply to a language's syntax only. And many languages' syntaxes are defined (though some rather described retrospectively) by some context-free grammar.
Yes, great post. And this is the funny thing about pseudosciences' (not that religion is; ID is) criticisms of science, or the way they try to gain mainstream acceptance. Part of the attack is always subtly aimed at the epistemological undepinnings of science when, really, they all want the predictablility and robustness that science brings. It is unfortunate (for them, the pseudosciences) that to bring such rigour would reveal to the world the weakness/unfalsifiability of their claims.
Trying to rebut the "evolution is only a theory" complaint by insisting that evolution is not a theory merely leads into a fruitless and logically unsatisfying debate about who decides where that threshold is and when it has been crossed.
Well, this was the point of one of my (much) earlier postings nearer the top of this thread. I never disputed that the theory of evolution by natural selection is any more (ugh) than a theory. I wanted to point out that the individual phenomenon that make up the basis of the theory -- inheritance, mutation, environmental suitability -- can be demonstrated, much like the individual observations you say are fact. We can cross-breed 2 plants (of the same species) of different colour, and produce grand-children that occur with a 3:1 colour ratio of the grand-parents. We can examine the DNA, and find that their structural similarity is maintained. We can submit bacterial cultures to artificial environments and force contrived natural pressures. *These* are the facts of evolution. That the theory goes on to make other generalisations is what makes the framework a theory. It is this aspect of "evolution is only a theory" that denies that there are any factual parts of evolution at all.
Something tells me we agree (since you obviously think humans can know points of truth, if you will), only we have both said it with different emphasis. To use '... only a theory' is to be blind to the truths that are to be found in the theory of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a work of (non-evil) genius!!!
Mwahahaha!! Ooops.
-Tez
-Tez
Most of the articles are extremely speculative, concerned more with the people and the unrefined ideas lying behind the research. Personally, I believe they have postured themselves to target this readership of non-professional scientific thinkers -- it doesn't at all pose as a peer-reviewed journal; definitely interesting, not always rigorous.
-Tez
You may also note that "additional terms are to be regarded as proposals for addition to the contract" for sale.
Nowhere is 'negotiation', 'two' parties, or 'meeting of minds' to be found in the uniform commercial code. Rather, 'reasonable expression of acceptance', 'conduct', 'probable', and 'ordinary course of business' do make several appearances. Your bizarre examples will never be construed as part of the contract, and I do not see how the terms being "clearly explained as an extra contractual burden before the point of sale" is not the case here.
-Tez
Parties have exchanged money and goods, with terms attached. There is almost no clearer case of 'contract' and 'due consideration' without getting the lawyers involved.
-Tez
-Tez
Boy, this rabbit costume is hot.
I might also add that your post was insightful, and obviously the product a great mind.
Please don't sue me.
-Tez
Of course, like any arms-race type situation, it's never the ability that's the issue. It's resulting exposure and response. If the Chinese government decided to break into all possible/feasible computer systems, any kind of informational and economic sanction short of a military response would be justified, nay, demanded by the governments and population of the world, and there would be no reason to hold back.
But if you say they have the ability to do so without getting fingered, I would either argue that that's simply unbelievable, or that there is no real reason other governments don't already do the same.
-Tez
Since Sun is attepting to utilise economies of scale, as this gets more popular, presumably prices would become more and more accessible.
-Tez
This is false, and that I believe it is false is all I was trying to convey.
If you applied this standard to other subjects, there would be very little worthwhile material to teach our young.
Also, it is true that the higher-level effects and the lower-level mechanisms of any theory must eventually connect in a coherent and consistent manner. I will easily agree to that much. That this implies evolution is superfluous and the molecular-biological view is the most, nay the only fruitful avenue of inquiry is plainly untrue.
As to the rest of your comment, I am confused as to whether you believe that there really is a dichotomy between religion and science, or whether you think I believe it, or both, or neither. Let me just say here that I am well aware of the epistemological basis of the scientific method, and I am also aware that it is not the only standard of truth.
-Tez
Is that your criterion of merit for a subject being taugh at school? That it be directly applicable In Real Life (TM)? The teaching of the modern synthesis at school should focus on the efforts of both Mendel and Darwin, followed by the discovery of Watson and Crick. It is the study of the method of science, analysis, critical thinking, pattern recognition, systematized experimentation. Do you not find these skills useful and necessary?
This is an unfathomable opinion. You obviously value the skills and understanding that can be obtained from studying physics and chemistry, and are unable to see how that argument applies to the teaching of biological evolution.
-Tez
Hmm. Time to look up the definition of falsifiable. In general, a theory is falsifiable if it makes falsifiable predictions. For example, "There will exist naturally black strawberries in the future" is not a falsifiable prediction, since at any point in time in which there aren't any black strawberries, we can still claim that they may occur sometime in the future. The prediction that massive bodies will produce an aberration of light is falsifiable (especially if you can quantify the extent of the aberration) since we can perform an observation and determine whether it conforms to or disproves our prediction.
ID has a double-disadvantage, since it doesn't make many predictions, and the ones it does (especially concerning irreducible complexity, or 'gaps' in evolutionary arguments) have counter-examples, or are outright unfalsifiable.
Hmm. I don't think anyone has ever claimed it scientific (which has no real bearing on validity other than scientific validity). It is definitely a world-view that one might take when thinking about the big picture. But no one bases any results, predictions, or explanations on it (well, not seriously anyway).
-Tez
Only if you are an agent of the state, and it is not strictly a legal defence. See this.
-Tez
Most technical jargon localises ideas and focuses attention on specific, understandable concepts. Management jargon has the opposite effect. It throws a warm, fuzzy blanket over things, so that they are indistinguishable, inscrutable. The fact that it is impossible to affirm or deny dense political or managerial doublespeak testifies to this. Enablement, process, solution, risk, quality. These things are often used out of place, without thought or distinction. And often they are strategic, customer-focused, empowering, just in case they weren't already all-encompassing.
Clear language should allow you to point at an idea, grab it, and shake it around to see if it holds up or falls apart.
Management speak enables the prioritisation of overall strategic considerations over internal-client processes, enabling corporations to increase effectiveness in holistic socioeconomic scenarios, creating value. In other words, it lets them get away with murder.
-Tez
Since, in general, a homeowner is neither an officer of the law nor an agent of the government, the prerequisites of entrapment are not fulfilled.
-Tez
As for your last paragraph, since the ISP is in fact a bounded entity with well-delineated geography and property, and since 'walking into' is not asking for and receiving authorisation, I fear such an analogy is inappropriate.
Btw, could you give me the link from which you obtained your Florida law quote?
Regards,
-Tez
It is precisely for this reason that they are different! Since the medium is physically and logically accessible, how do we know it's not intentionally accessible? Protected resources are usually secured or designated by means of doors, fences, signs and the like. Wireless access points do have facilities to put up indicators, blocks, and guards in front of themselves. And yet these are unused.
What I'm trying to say is that if the boundaries aren't distinguishable, and personal ownership over the airwaves isn't even well-defined, how can there be intentional trespass? Since it is perfectly legal for someone to gain access to an open wifi network, how can the law make such distinctions?
-Tez
To clarify for clarifications sake, it can't really be true that *all* the CO2 is released, since the tree may become trapped in sedimentary rock, and become a deposit of fossil fuel over the next few millenia. Until it's dug up and burnt.
In terms of conservation of matter (plus the fact that photosynthesis is essentially the reverse of respiration, especially in terms of waste products), if the tree is burnt, then the net amount of CO2 absorbed over its life will be equal to the CO2 released over its life plus burning.
If the tree is entirely decomposed, then all the carbon will be recycled back into the environment. But not necessarily all as CO2, since some anaerobic bacteria metabolise sugars in low oxygen conditions, producing by-products like alcohol and methane. Eventually it may all be converted back to CO2, since that is the main waste-product of burning and respiration. But this is simply a further application of the conservation of matter.
And do note that all instances of the word 'burnt' refer to some sort of perfect combustion of all fuel, leaving no soot or charcoal behind.
In other words, the post you originally replied to was a vast over-simplification.
-Tez
Look up photosynthesis and respiration. When alive, trees, like all living organisms, respire. This takes oxygen, even when the sun is out, and sugars are being produced from photosynthesis. In trees, oxygen is absorbed from the air. Look up leaf structure and stomata.
-Tez
Now, I'd like to see a story about a neurological experiment failing.
-Tez
And consider, this is between the most closely related pair of Windows operating systems to have come from the Microsoft stable.
-Tez
While I'm not trying to imply intentional plagiarism (which, unfortunately I might have done in the article itself), you *really* should attribute your source here, since it really is *very* close to the original.
-Tez
Context-free grammars apply to a language's syntax only. And many languages' syntaxes are defined (though some rather described retrospectively) by some context-free grammar.
Implementations provide semantics.
-Tez
-Tez
Something tells me we agree (since you obviously think humans can know points of truth, if you will), only we have both said it with different emphasis. To use '... only a theory' is to be blind to the truths that are to be found in the theory of evolution.
-Tez