Note that it doesn't actually matter whether you're above or below the storm. If this dark lightning is releasing gamma radiation it is likely doing so in all directions. Including *up*
Instead of modifying your phone, turning it off, taking the battery out etc. you could build a mini Faraday cage. put the phone in there whenever it's not in use.:) When people ask about it tell them you've had issues with your phone running away.
By your own definition the hypothesis is a method by which your observations are tested and made increasingly accurate. I don't dispute that predictions can be, and are often a tool used in the scientific method. I dispute that the goal of this method is to make these speculations. The goal is not to make predictions. The goal is to describe the universe. Even your quoted method explicitly states that.
The starting point is the recognition of a problem and the need for a solution. The hypothesis, a prediction of a solution, is a vital part of the process. But, the scientific method is exactly that: a method of identifying a solution to the problem. You develop an experiment to determine what it is you need to measure, again not the hypothesis. Your argument seems to suggest that you don't properly understand the parts of this method, and by extension misunderstand the method as a whole.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Actual science predicts unusual measurements. Junk science says "hey, no problem, our model can explain that too".
This couldn't be more incorrect. Actual science is a method of observation and has no business in speculation. Either your scientific model describes the behavior of the natural world or you need to change your model to more accurately describe it. It's an ongoing process.
Well said. Consider this hypothetical: You're looking for a specific person, the only information you have about them is their phone number. So, to identify them, you pick two random cell phone towers that their phone linked to and try to determine who they are.... But you already know who they are... I feel pretty safe knowing that people with that level of common sense are chasing me...
In all fairness it is not more correct to say that oil is stored solar energy than it is to say the energy from the sun or other stars is a product of stored chemical or nuclear energy. It would be more correct to say that there is a set amount of energy and matter in this universe and that it is in constant transition in an attempt to reach a "more stable" state.
This was on the news last night on TV... And in that story they said the same thing which is that the secret service claimed it was not a fuel issue and the Israelis stuck by the story that it was. So all we really know is that the president's limo broke down of unconfirmed causes sometime in the middle of the day... yesterday.
Have we considered the possibility that there is some management there, and that they have faith they've hired good, and competent people? I feel as though if I were managing a group of engineers/IT staff and I had made good hiring decisions I could leave them to their own devices and expect a good product.
I've heard it said that a good manager doesn't need to manage because he's done his job of hiring staff well.
I don't actually know if this is anything like how the company is structured. But food for thought.
If the goal is to use this technology to mend broken connections in diseased or damaged brains, wouldn't it make more sense to test a similarly damaged rat brain rather than attempt to repeat the same results with four mice?
Note: The question is related to the original article more so than the submission on/.
I've never had any complaints with TI calculators. They would charge me more to put a color screen, or a touch screen, or whatever else on it. I don't need that stuff for math, so I don't want to pay for it.
I have a TI-89 Titanium that got me through a mechanical engineering degree, and that I use every day at work. It's a rock solid calculator. I've never thought: "man I wish this had a touch screen..."
Classes, as well as professors, are evaluated based on the pass/fail ratio of students. Because of this, passing sub-par work is rewarded. Word gets out that a certain class is "easy" and even less talented students enroll. I don't think this is new, but yes, the bar is continuously lowered..
Now, I'm no economics expert... But aren't minimum wage increases one of the (albeit small) contributors to inflation? And as such, wouldn't tying minimum wage increases to inflation create a circular reference of sorts?
I agree that people are willing to pay for trustworthy, reputable sources. In this particular case, the original author is also offering the free alternative. So I don't see why anyone would pay unless they legitimately wanted to donate to the author for their work. In other cases, I would tend to agree with you.
Open source is a nice idea... But if you put yourself in the shoes of the consumer, you're likely to download the source, compile it, and leave the donating to the other end users who you're sure are contributing... Obviously everyone thinks like this, so very few actually donate. As far as viability goes, as long as you don't intend to continue making a living on your work. Go for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that it doesn't actually matter whether you're above or below the storm. If this dark lightning is releasing gamma radiation it is likely doing so in all directions. Including *up*
Instead of modifying your phone, turning it off, taking the battery out etc. you could build a mini Faraday cage. put the phone in there whenever it's not in use. :) When people ask about it tell them you've had issues with your phone running away.
By your own definition the hypothesis is a method by which your observations are tested and made increasingly accurate. I don't dispute that predictions can be, and are often a tool used in the scientific method. I dispute that the goal of this method is to make these speculations. The goal is not to make predictions. The goal is to describe the universe. Even your quoted method explicitly states that.
The starting point is the recognition of a problem and the need for a solution. The hypothesis, a prediction of a solution, is a vital part of the process. But, the scientific method is exactly that: a method of identifying a solution to the problem. You develop an experiment to determine what it is you need to measure, again not the hypothesis. Your argument seems to suggest that you don't properly understand the parts of this method, and by extension misunderstand the method as a whole.
We are discussing the definition of science. Not the definition of hypothesis. Case in point.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Actual science predicts unusual measurements. Junk science says "hey, no problem, our model can explain that too".
This couldn't be more incorrect. Actual science is a method of observation and has no business in speculation. Either your scientific model describes the behavior of the natural world or you need to change your model to more accurately describe it. It's an ongoing process.
Well said. Consider this hypothetical: You're looking for a specific person, the only information you have about them is their phone number. So, to identify them, you pick two random cell phone towers that their phone linked to and try to determine who they are.... But you already know who they are... I feel pretty safe knowing that people with that level of common sense are chasing me...
In all fairness it is not more correct to say that oil is stored solar energy than it is to say the energy from the sun or other stars is a product of stored chemical or nuclear energy. It would be more correct to say that there is a set amount of energy and matter in this universe and that it is in constant transition in an attempt to reach a "more stable" state.
This was on the news last night on TV... And in that story they said the same thing which is that the secret service claimed it was not a fuel issue and the Israelis stuck by the story that it was. So all we really know is that the president's limo broke down of unconfirmed causes sometime in the middle of the day... yesterday.
Just a thought... If I was going to commit these crimes I would consider having a seemingly careless 20 year old fall guy around...
Have we considered the possibility that there is some management there, and that they have faith they've hired good, and competent people? I feel as though if I were managing a group of engineers/IT staff and I had made good hiring decisions I could leave them to their own devices and expect a good product. I've heard it said that a good manager doesn't need to manage because he's done his job of hiring staff well. I don't actually know if this is anything like how the company is structured. But food for thought.
North America and South America are different continents...
If the goal is to use this technology to mend broken connections in diseased or damaged brains, wouldn't it make more sense to test a similarly damaged rat brain rather than attempt to repeat the same results with four mice? Note: The question is related to the original article more so than the submission on /.
I've never had any complaints with TI calculators. They would charge me more to put a color screen, or a touch screen, or whatever else on it. I don't need that stuff for math, so I don't want to pay for it. I have a TI-89 Titanium that got me through a mechanical engineering degree, and that I use every day at work. It's a rock solid calculator. I've never thought: "man I wish this had a touch screen..."
Classes, as well as professors, are evaluated based on the pass/fail ratio of students. Because of this, passing sub-par work is rewarded. Word gets out that a certain class is "easy" and even less talented students enroll. I don't think this is new, but yes, the bar is continuously lowered..
Now, I'm no economics expert... But aren't minimum wage increases one of the (albeit small) contributors to inflation? And as such, wouldn't tying minimum wage increases to inflation create a circular reference of sorts?
I agree that people are willing to pay for trustworthy, reputable sources. In this particular case, the original author is also offering the free alternative. So I don't see why anyone would pay unless they legitimately wanted to donate to the author for their work. In other cases, I would tend to agree with you.
Open source is a nice idea... But if you put yourself in the shoes of the consumer, you're likely to download the source, compile it, and leave the donating to the other end users who you're sure are contributing... Obviously everyone thinks like this, so very few actually donate. As far as viability goes, as long as you don't intend to continue making a living on your work. Go for it.