I don't think it's a bad idea; in fact this is what my district in Ohio does already. A terminal is set up - it takes your choices and prints out a sheet for you to review, a receipt for you to review, which is kept in the machine, and it stores the vote electronically. You put your sheet into an optical scanner. If the numbers don't match up between the two machines, the optical scanner wins.
Everything that matters, it got an 'A' for, except for using non-inlined CSS which it got a 'B' for the test that said you shouldn't (to reduce HTTP requests), and an N/A for the test that says you should (to take advantage of caching).
That seems silly. Isn't one of the advantages of having a separate CSS file that you reduced redundancy across multiple pages? Sure, it's an additional file to load - the first time.
I'm not sure if you're backing me up or contradicting me, but you are correct. Consider my post as a soft and easy to chew metaphor meant for the metaphysical enthusiast I replied to.:)
When something is measured, it collapses it... What causes the collapse?
Perhaps consciousness?
No. It's just that once you've measured where something is, the probability of it being somewhere else is drastically reduced for a while.
What's the probability that I left my keys in the kitchen instead of the bedroom? Let's say 50%.
"Oh," a friend says, "I just saw them in the bedroom." so what does that probability become? 0%.
It was measurement, not some mystic force, which reduced the area in which my keys are most likely to be found. It's no different with quantum mechanics.
Most of the blues we see (in general) are a result of Rayleigh scattering. Blue wavelengths don't tend to make it very far in our atmosphere, so the blue we do see is often scattered lights of other wavelengths.
Randomness:
# Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
If you had ever spent any serious time learning about quantum theory, a major part of your time in the beginning would be learning about the probability distribution of the electron. As long as we are nitpicking, allow me to point out that the SWE is entirely random (absent waveform collapse) but is very predictable; that's why it can be formalized into an entire field of science. In fact, you may be interested to know that scientific theories explain and predict events.
The English language is full of all kinds of neat words that you should consider learning before spouting off at the mouth regarding other subjects that you also know nothing about.
I'll admit I don't really have an opinion on free will one way or another. I agree that it is a matter of philosophy, and as far as philosophy goes, I suppose I would choose to believe in free will if I were forced to make a choice. (A statement which, after reading one more time, amuses me.) A life without free will is a life of slavery to circumstance, a life without identity, and a life without hope. If I had to choose a perspective, I imagine that wouldn't be the one I adopt. I think it's a pointless discussion really. The question might as well be "Which is closer to the truth? Pessimism or optimism?" or "Could the Flash beat Superman in a foot race?"
What I took exception to in his argument though, was that his assertion was based on a deterministic universe. He recognized that the universe is not truly deterministic, but the discards that fact as irrelevant. He says nondeterminism is irrelevant to an argument about free which is based on natural determinism. If one is irrelevant then both are.
The second problem I had was the comment about quantum randomness. "Assuming that it exists" as if there's a major doubt afoot. It's someone making an argument using physics to back up his assertion, but blatantly discarding a significant principle, and casting doubt on it at the same time. Why not "Gravity, assuming it exists..." or "Fusion, assuming it exists..."?
Regardless of the truth or falseness of his assertion, his argument is sophistry; at best it's still a willful ignorance of the same principles he's using to argue.
Outside of quantum randomness (assuming that it exists, which as far as anyone knows appears to be the case), which is irrelevant to the discussion of "free will" anyway,
Translation:
Two identical things in two identical situations will behave identically because nature is deterministic!
Well, as long as you ignore the part about nature being non-deterministic...
A well established science beyond my understanding is hogwash anyways, and in case it's not - it's irrelevant!
Ignore anything that would makes me wrong and you'll see how right I am!
Seriously, quantum theory is bullshit? Guess I'll have to start a Dial-A-Physicist line. I can advertise in the National Enquirer right next to Miss Cleo.
I know I'm feeding the trolls but:
1500 calories per day - 400 calories per hour * 12 hour work days = -3300 calories per day, or ~0.45kg of fat per day. Effective maybe, but hardly healthy.
While I can't say whether or not his assertion is correct, I think what he's trying to say is that the testosterone is produced in higher concentration, not just higher amounts.
Actually, I just did a little googling; a JNCI study implies a 3-19% higher concentration on testosterone in American black males than American white males. I didn't find anything one way or another about asian men, and the study itself has been cast with doubt; although looking around I can't tell if that's due to "bad science" or "bad politics."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's a bad idea; in fact this is what my district in Ohio does already. A terminal is set up - it takes your choices and prints out a sheet for you to review, a receipt for you to review, which is kept in the machine, and it stores the vote electronically. You put your sheet into an optical scanner. If the numbers don't match up between the two machines, the optical scanner wins.
My statement to the contrary was as meaningful as yours was. (citation needed)
"Backscatter X-ray" is what you're looking for.
Tomorrow: Hungary Officials Raid Microsoft Visual Studio?
That seems silly. Isn't one of the advantages of having a separate CSS file that you reduced redundancy across multiple pages? Sure, it's an additional file to load - the first time.
I'm not sure if this is the proper spelling, but I think it's something like "Aaaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww!"
I'm not sure if you're backing me up or contradicting me, but you are correct. Consider my post as a soft and easy to chew metaphor meant for the metaphysical enthusiast I replied to. :)
When something is measured, it collapses it... What causes the collapse? Perhaps consciousness? No. It's just that once you've measured where something is, the probability of it being somewhere else is drastically reduced for a while. What's the probability that I left my keys in the kitchen instead of the bedroom? Let's say 50%. "Oh," a friend says, "I just saw them in the bedroom." so what does that probability become? 0%. It was measurement, not some mystic force, which reduced the area in which my keys are most likely to be found. It's no different with quantum mechanics.
Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but that should read "have already been."
I'm calling you out on Godwin.
Most of the blues we see (in general) are a result of Rayleigh scattering. Blue wavelengths don't tend to make it very far in our atmosphere, so the blue we do see is often scattered lights of other wavelengths.
Admit it: Leonard Nimoy is hot.
It's just because the middle east is outside of his monkeysphere.
You have my sympathy.
I understand; in death, we have a name.
His name was James Doohan.
His name was James Doohan.
His name was James Doohan.
This vote has my full support.
It's buried deep in our physiology; that famous "flight or type" response. :)
That begs the question: how would you have him use that phrase?
George Washington once held an opponent's wife's hand... in a jar of acid... at a party.
Randomness:
# Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
If you had ever spent any serious time learning about quantum theory, a major part of your time in the beginning would be learning about the probability distribution of the electron. As long as we are nitpicking, allow me to point out that the SWE is entirely random (absent waveform collapse) but is very predictable; that's why it can be formalized into an entire field of science. In fact, you may be interested to know that scientific theories explain and predict events.
The English language is full of all kinds of neat words that you should consider learning before spouting off at the mouth regarding other subjects that you also know nothing about.
Thread's finished.
So goatse is a form of NUDE TERRORISM! Is that why so many people click on it?
What I took exception to in his argument though, was that his assertion was based on a deterministic universe. He recognized that the universe is not truly deterministic, but the discards that fact as irrelevant. He says nondeterminism is irrelevant to an argument about free which is based on natural determinism. If one is irrelevant then both are.
The second problem I had was the comment about quantum randomness. "Assuming that it exists" as if there's a major doubt afoot. It's someone making an argument using physics to back up his assertion, but blatantly discarding a significant principle, and casting doubt on it at the same time. Why not "Gravity, assuming it exists..." or "Fusion, assuming it exists..."?
Regardless of the truth or falseness of his assertion, his argument is sophistry; at best it's still a willful ignorance of the same principles he's using to argue.
Translation:
Two identical things in two identical situations will behave identically because nature is deterministic!
Well, as long as you ignore the part about nature being non-deterministic...
A well established science beyond my understanding is hogwash anyways, and in case it's not - it's irrelevant!
Ignore anything that would makes me wrong and you'll see how right I am!
Seriously, quantum theory is bullshit? Guess I'll have to start a Dial-A-Physicist line. I can advertise in the National Enquirer right next to Miss Cleo.
I know I'm feeding the trolls but:
1500 calories per day - 400 calories per hour * 12 hour work days = -3300 calories per day, or ~0.45kg of fat per day. Effective maybe, but hardly healthy.
Actually, I just did a little googling; a JNCI study implies a 3-19% higher concentration on testosterone in American black males than American white males. I didn't find anything one way or another about asian men, and the study itself has been cast with doubt; although looking around I can't tell if that's due to "bad science" or "bad politics."