No, its not that simple. A key part of science is being able to test theories. Make predictions, make observations (measurements), determine if the predictions hold, etc.
Yes that is a key part
Untestable theories, things that can not be measured are of little interest to science
It sort of depends. There is a difference between things that are practically untestable (e.g. string theory) and things that are untestable in principle.
for example the existence of god and what god's intentions and expectations are.
And also what the favorite color of invisible unicorns is
Note that the unobservable is not necessarily unmeasurable, things can be measured by their effect, ex. dark matter's gravitational effect.
I am quite familiar with how science works. And the terminology you are using is wrong. Dark matter is observable, it just doesn't interact electromagnetically, so it doesn't absorb or emit light. This makes it less observable not unobservable. Just like how infrared is less observable to humans not unobservable with the right instruments.
That is a historically ignorant statement. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc had no conflict with science. Their knowledge may have been limited, their interpretations of observations wrong, but they had a curiosity and a desire to understand their world.
A curiosity and a desire to understand the world is not sufficient for science. The innovations Egyptians, greeks, romans largely did was proto-science. It had a lot of the features of science, but it was also missing some key features. Science is not just proving what you know, it is also about proving what you don't know.
Also, we have theoretical physics, mathematics, and logic, which are some of the non-empirical foundational building blocks of science. Black holes were predicted using mathematics before they were ever observed. The greek philosopher Democrates suggested the indivisibility of matter before such an idea could ever be tested.
Divine revelation is not a valid move in the game of science. Any "knowledge" tainted by this sort of flawed methodology needs to be excised from the knowledge-base. It's not that nobody religious ever had a good idea. It;s that religion doesn't provide a good mechanism for relinquishing bad ideas. The good stuff is mixed in with centuries of bad ideas, and there is no good way to separate them.
The scientific method is about weeding out the bad ideas.
The modern scientific method evolved and was formalized out of their limited but improving efforts.
Yes it did. And those key evolutionary changes that happened were extremely important. They allowed us to go from primitive societies where intelligent people occasionally had very good ideas to a society where the process of producing good ideas and weeding out bad ones is streamlined.
And now with my main point out of the way, I will say that a lot of Greek mathematics were definitely legitimate math, and there was some overlap with science (e.g. Arhicmedes, Euclid, Pythagoras etc). But this was more in the theoretical realm moreso than the empirical realm. And as such, they were very good at coming up with ideas, and not so good at weeding out bad ones.
There were some great philosophers who also happened to be Catholic. That doesn't make Catholicism or religion in general equivalent to the field of philosophy. There were some really great scientists who were Nazis. That doesn't make Nazism scientific.
Also science is not *just* about the measurable (i.e. the empirical), it also involves the theoretical and philosophical. In addition to answering questions, science also requires some insight into what questions are worth asking. Religion really has not offered a whole lot on this front. Sure some religious people have thought of some very good questions to ask, but given that most of the world (including scientists) were religious for the vast majority of human history, it sort of makes sense that a lot of contributors were also religious. You could also say that most scientific discoveries were made by people wearing clothing. That doesn't make the clothing responsible for the discoveries.
In fact the guiding philosophy of nearly every religion is antithetical to the guiding philosophy of science. The fact that some of the more progressive religions feel the need to associate themselves with science to gain legitimacy is a testament to the credibility of science. No amount of religion was going to get us to the moon. There were a lot of religious people who helped us get to the moon. But if they tried to justify a formula by saying God told them it was correct, they would not have had a job for very long.
Yes science and religion are orthogonal, just like how science and astrology are orthogonal.
If I find a good philosopher who is also a practicing palm reader, should I be able to claim that science and palm reading are non-overlapping majesteria, where science provides the empirical and palm reading provides the philosophy? What if he is as smart as Thomas Aquinas and has some really beautifully written justifications on why all metaphysical truths can be known from deciphering the meanings encoded in the creases in hand skin.
I think I can appreciate the intelligence of a person without believing everything they say, especially in light of more recently acquired knowledge.
I can appreciate the genius of Isaac Newton without believing in his theories on the occult, alchemy, etc. We shouldn't grant alchemy credence just because the great Isaac Newton is associated with it.
Science is a process of acquiring knowledge (i.e. the scientific method). The church can support science all it wants. Anyone can support science. Nazis supported science. This doesn't make Catholicism scientific for the same reason it doesn't make Nazism scientific.
I resent the disingenuous attempt to legitimize religion by associating it with religion. Religious people are able to be scientists because people are apparently able to harbor conflicting ideologies. An atheist can be a priest. A creationist can be an evolutionary biology teacher. I was actually taught evolution in the 11th grade by a catholic science teacher who did not believe in evolution, and he did a perfectly good job.
Just because people are claiming that religion is an enemy of science doesn't make the claim "Person X is associated with Y and is a scientist, therefore Y is very scientific", any more legitimate, regardless of whether it's the catholic church, belgian army, republicans, democrats, communists, or nazis.
I know it's really hard to overcome your deep-seated internal stereotypes, but just because someone thinks religion is bullshit does not mean they have claimed or think that no religious people can do science.
What if he was still in the Belgian Army at the time, or in a book club, or a fantasy football league? Is it fair to say that some scientific theory began with [insert group X] merely because the originator of the theory was also associated with group X?
He was also a scientist. I think that might have had more to do with his scientific contributions than some other affiliations he had.
We can't just ask service providers not to use encryption, because people might just use their own encryption prior to using those services. What we need to do is stop all encryption by getting everyone to forget about math.
So... Just to be obvious, it's all fine and dandy to flash firmware into routers that don't come with WiFi?
I don't see why not. It's not like any firmware you can flash on to a wired-only router is going to ever cause any interference on any broadcast frequencies.
Wired routers are just little embedded computers with 5 integrated NICs
The problem is that the firmware for a wireless router is that it is monolithic. If they had split the firmware into parts (i.e. like one for the wifi controller, and one for the OS), then you should logically be able to flash the OS to whatever you want and keep the wifi controller software the same. This would be analogous to changing OSes on your desktop but keeping the PCI wifi card firmware the same.
You can run whatever software you want on a computer, as long as any wifi cards are using official firmware to guarantee that they follow FCC rules.
By making your own computer all you are doing is changing the protocol by which you need to communicate with an FCC controlled device ( TCP/IP -> PCI/PCIE)
It's doesn't matter what kind of software you run on your home made router for the same reason it doesn't matter what software you run on the computers connected to your store bought router.
Even the cheapskates win, because often times trying to be cheap just costs you a bunch more time and money. If you prevent cheapskates from making stupid decisions based on trying to be cheap, then you save them time and money (although they may not see it that way). They can still try to be cheap, but there is a better chance that the cheapest thing they can find will be a decent device.
You clearly don't know shit. The fact that *you* can't inform me of anything is not the same as "nobody can inform me". There is an answer. *Somebody* (i.e. like maybe the people who authored or pushed the law) clearly thought that gambling on games of chance was worse than gambling on games of skill, or at least offered a disingenuous rationale even if they didn't believe it. You just don't know why they thought that, and decided to pretend to know the answer to question that you didn't.
What exactly am I supposed to learn from someone only pretending to know things?
The fact that you think the question "Why does law X allow Y and forbid Z?" is adequately answered by "The idea was to allow Y, and prevent Z" I think says a lot about your intellectual abilities.
If it's gambling, then explain: "the top 1 percent of DraftKings winners receive the vast majority of the winnings."
Wouldn't there be a more even distribution of winners?
It's pretty easy to make a gambling game that only rewards 1% of the players. So this fact alone doesn't preclude this from being gambling
If the top 1% of players are consistently winning, that's a different story. But this is different than the scenario where winning the jackpot once is what puts you in the top 1% of players.
Why gambling should be considered bad, but games of skill good? Who the fuck knows.
If we are worried about the losers being "cheated", then I would thinking gambling would be better because it at least gives some chance to those people with no skill and otherwise destined to lose.
1. That's 2-inch mesh.
2. That's 200 sqft of fence. How many of those do you need to cover a whole prison yard?
3. You can't just drape chain link fence over an arbitrarily large span. That shit is going to sag.
At our work we have a rule of "don't use goto unless it is for a good reason" (e.g. breaking out of multiple nested loops). Although often times there are still more elegant ways of solving the problem than goto.
I guess it depends on your culture. I was just trying to find out whether all words are "just words", or whether some words go beyond being "just words" for you.
Without seeing a specific implementation, I have trouble imagining what the advantage could be. Determining whether a key exists, or whether a stored value is null are both simple conditions to write. Why clutter it up with an unnecessary class?
I don't know why you would clutter it up with a class. But for thread safety, you would want to get the answer immediately. If you did something like this it could lead to a false result:
if (hash.contains(key)) {
__// the key is in the hash
__//some other thread removes the key
__value = hash.get(key);
__// this returns null, implying that the value mapped to key was null which it may not have been.
}
you could sycnhronize access to the hash, but you would still need to get answers to both conditions in a single access, and an Optional object is capable of containing both answers in a single object returns by a single function call.
Slashdot Mirror
No, its not that simple. A key part of science is being able to test theories. Make predictions, make observations (measurements), determine if the predictions hold, etc.
Yes that is a key part
Untestable theories, things that can not be measured are of little interest to science
It sort of depends. There is a difference between things that are practically untestable (e.g. string theory) and things that are untestable in principle.
for example the existence of god and what god's intentions and expectations are.
And also what the favorite color of invisible unicorns is
Note that the unobservable is not necessarily unmeasurable, things can be measured by their effect, ex. dark matter's gravitational effect.
I am quite familiar with how science works. And the terminology you are using is wrong. Dark matter is observable, it just doesn't interact electromagnetically, so it doesn't absorb or emit light. This makes it less observable not unobservable. Just like how infrared is less observable to humans not unobservable with the right instruments.
That is a historically ignorant statement. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc had no conflict with science. Their knowledge may have been limited, their interpretations of observations wrong, but they had a curiosity and a desire to understand their world.
A curiosity and a desire to understand the world is not sufficient for science. The innovations Egyptians, greeks, romans largely did was proto-science. It had a lot of the features of science, but it was also missing some key features. Science is not just proving what you know, it is also about proving what you don't know.
Also, we have theoretical physics, mathematics, and logic, which are some of the non-empirical foundational building blocks of science. Black holes were predicted using mathematics before they were ever observed. The greek philosopher Democrates suggested the indivisibility of matter before such an idea could ever be tested.
Divine revelation is not a valid move in the game of science. Any "knowledge" tainted by this sort of flawed methodology needs to be excised from the knowledge-base. It's not that nobody religious ever had a good idea. It;s that religion doesn't provide a good mechanism for relinquishing bad ideas. The good stuff is mixed in with centuries of bad ideas, and there is no good way to separate them.
The scientific method is about weeding out the bad ideas.
The modern scientific method evolved and was formalized out of their limited but improving efforts.
Yes it did. And those key evolutionary changes that happened were extremely important. They allowed us to go from primitive societies where intelligent people occasionally had very good ideas to a society where the process of producing good ideas and weeding out bad ones is streamlined.
And now with my main point out of the way, I will say that a lot of Greek mathematics were definitely legitimate math, and there was some overlap with science (e.g. Arhicmedes, Euclid, Pythagoras etc). But this was more in the theoretical realm moreso than the empirical realm. And as such, they were very good at coming up with ideas, and not so good at weeding out bad ones.
There were some great philosophers who also happened to be Catholic. That doesn't make Catholicism or religion in general equivalent to the field of philosophy. There were some really great scientists who were Nazis. That doesn't make Nazism scientific.
Also science is not *just* about the measurable (i.e. the empirical), it also involves the theoretical and philosophical. In addition to answering questions, science also requires some insight into what questions are worth asking. Religion really has not offered a whole lot on this front. Sure some religious people have thought of some very good questions to ask, but given that most of the world (including scientists) were religious for the vast majority of human history, it sort of makes sense that a lot of contributors were also religious. You could also say that most scientific discoveries were made by people wearing clothing. That doesn't make the clothing responsible for the discoveries.
In fact the guiding philosophy of nearly every religion is antithetical to the guiding philosophy of science. The fact that some of the more progressive religions feel the need to associate themselves with science to gain legitimacy is a testament to the credibility of science. No amount of religion was going to get us to the moon. There were a lot of religious people who helped us get to the moon. But if they tried to justify a formula by saying God told them it was correct, they would not have had a job for very long.
Yes science and religion are orthogonal, just like how science and astrology are orthogonal.
If I find a good philosopher who is also a practicing palm reader, should I be able to claim that science and palm reading are non-overlapping majesteria, where science provides the empirical and palm reading provides the philosophy? What if he is as smart as Thomas Aquinas and has some really beautifully written justifications on why all metaphysical truths can be known from deciphering the meanings encoded in the creases in hand skin.
I think I can appreciate the intelligence of a person without believing everything they say, especially in light of more recently acquired knowledge.
I can appreciate the genius of Isaac Newton without believing in his theories on the occult, alchemy, etc. We shouldn't grant alchemy credence just because the great Isaac Newton is associated with it.
Science is a process of acquiring knowledge (i.e. the scientific method). The church can support science all it wants. Anyone can support science. Nazis supported science. This doesn't make Catholicism scientific for the same reason it doesn't make Nazism scientific.
I resent the disingenuous attempt to legitimize religion by associating it with religion. Religious people are able to be scientists because people are apparently able to harbor conflicting ideologies. An atheist can be a priest. A creationist can be an evolutionary biology teacher. I was actually taught evolution in the 11th grade by a catholic science teacher who did not believe in evolution, and he did a perfectly good job.
Just because people are claiming that religion is an enemy of science doesn't make the claim "Person X is associated with Y and is a scientist, therefore Y is very scientific", any more legitimate, regardless of whether it's the catholic church, belgian army, republicans, democrats, communists, or nazis.
I know it's really hard to overcome your deep-seated internal stereotypes, but just because someone thinks religion is bullshit does not mean they have claimed or think that no religious people can do science.
The orthogonal fields being reality and bullshit.
What if he was still in the Belgian Army at the time, or in a book club, or a fantasy football league? Is it fair to say that some scientific theory began with [insert group X] merely because the originator of the theory was also associated with group X?
He was also a scientist. I think that might have had more to do with his scientific contributions than some other affiliations he had.
You could also say "The big bang theory began with the Belgian Army", because he was also in that.
We can't just ask service providers not to use encryption, because people might just use their own encryption prior to using those services. What we need to do is stop all encryption by getting everyone to forget about math.
So... Just to be obvious, it's all fine and dandy to flash firmware into routers that don't come with WiFi?
I don't see why not. It's not like any firmware you can flash on to a wired-only router is going to ever cause any interference on any broadcast frequencies.
Wired routers are just little embedded computers with 5 integrated NICs
The problem is that the firmware for a wireless router is that it is monolithic. If they had split the firmware into parts (i.e. like one for the wifi controller, and one for the OS), then you should logically be able to flash the OS to whatever you want and keep the wifi controller software the same. This would be analogous to changing OSes on your desktop but keeping the PCI wifi card firmware the same.
You can run whatever software you want on a computer, as long as any wifi cards are using official firmware to guarantee that they follow FCC rules.
By making your own computer all you are doing is changing the protocol by which you need to communicate with an FCC controlled device ( TCP/IP -> PCI/PCIE)
It's doesn't matter what kind of software you run on your home made router for the same reason it doesn't matter what software you run on the computers connected to your store bought router.
Even the cheapskates win, because often times trying to be cheap just costs you a bunch more time and money. If you prevent cheapskates from making stupid decisions based on trying to be cheap, then you save them time and money (although they may not see it that way). They can still try to be cheap, but there is a better chance that the cheapest thing they can find will be a decent device.
You clearly don't know shit. The fact that *you* can't inform me of anything is not the same as "nobody can inform me". There is an answer. *Somebody* (i.e. like maybe the people who authored or pushed the law) clearly thought that gambling on games of chance was worse than gambling on games of skill, or at least offered a disingenuous rationale even if they didn't believe it. You just don't know why they thought that, and decided to pretend to know the answer to question that you didn't.
What exactly am I supposed to learn from someone only pretending to know things?
The fact that you think the question "Why does law X allow Y and forbid Z?" is adequately answered by "The idea was to allow Y, and prevent Z" I think says a lot about your intellectual abilities.
All I said was "Why gambling should be considered bad, but games of skill good? Who the fuck knows."
You were the one who tried to offer a rationale for the existing laws. I didn't ask for your opinion, and it's not my fault that it's incoherent.
What is the compelling reason to make betting on games of chance illegal that doesn't also apply to games of skill?
You can make playing soccer illegal if you want. Why must soccer remain legal?
Why is it worse to bet a pizza on a game of chance than a game of skill?
If it's gambling, then explain: "the top 1 percent of DraftKings winners receive the vast majority of the winnings." Wouldn't there be a more even distribution of winners?
It's pretty easy to make a gambling game that only rewards 1% of the players. So this fact alone doesn't preclude this from being gambling
If the top 1% of players are consistently winning, that's a different story. But this is different than the scenario where winning the jackpot once is what puts you in the top 1% of players.
Why gambling should be considered bad, but games of skill good? Who the fuck knows.
If we are worried about the losers being "cheated", then I would thinking gambling would be better because it at least gives some chance to those people with no skill and otherwise destined to lose.
More importantly their cargo will drop right through
Well I guess all prisons must be like the one you were in.
1. That's 2-inch mesh.
2. That's 200 sqft of fence. How many of those do you need to cover a whole prison yard?
3. You can't just drape chain link fence over an arbitrarily large span. That shit is going to sag.
Saving taxpayers cash?? Prisons are for profit now! Extra high tech shit is more stuff you can bill the government for.
At our work we have a rule of "don't use goto unless it is for a good reason" (e.g. breaking out of multiple nested loops). Although often times there are still more elegant ways of solving the problem than goto.
I guess it depends on your culture. I was just trying to find out whether all words are "just words", or whether some words go beyond being "just words" for you.
Haven't heard of that, but I might take a look if you have a link.
This is the article I read: https://developer.atlassian.co... which goes over this usage of optional in the first paragraph.
Without seeing a specific implementation, I have trouble imagining what the advantage could be. Determining whether a key exists, or whether a stored value is null are both simple conditions to write. Why clutter it up with an unnecessary class?
I don't know why you would clutter it up with a class. But for thread safety, you would want to get the answer immediately. If you did something like this it could lead to a false result:
if (hash.contains(key)) {
__// the key is in the hash
__//some other thread removes the key
__value = hash.get(key);
__// this returns null, implying that the value mapped to key was null which it may not have been.
}
you could sycnhronize access to the hash, but you would still need to get answers to both conditions in a single access, and an Optional object is capable of containing both answers in a single object returns by a single function call.