You know, your faith or lack of it doesn't affect reality in any way, only your interpretation of it. Math, being a purely abstract concept, has no existance beyond that interpretation, whereas any entity either exists or not and has or has not certain attributes independently of your perceptions.
Nah. Reality bites back. You might never perceive that bullet bearing down on your skull - before or after it gets there - but it will make a terrific difference in your perception of reality when it's done.
Like quarks... where's the objective verification.
Take the time to study nuclear physics and advanced mathematics, and you will be able to understand the experimental evididence for the existence of quarks and decide for yourself whether it is sufficient or lacking. So far, a large majority of those trained in these disciplines agree that the evidence is strong. They are, however, prepared to dump or modify the theory if evidence to the contrary comes along.
Contrast that with the religion of your neighbourhood priest or shaman.
Nobody has ever observed the Big Bang (nor something unequivocally attributable to it), nor a superstring. You could argue about quantum physics, but it would be an uphill battle. Embryology... hmmm... we still have Earnst Haeckel's frauds being touted as truth in textbooks after more than a century. That doesn't bode well.
The beauty of all of the theories you have posed is that they are testable. Either their predictions will observed or they will not. Either way, our knowledge is advanced - whether the theory is 'proved' or not. (I personally dislike the term 'prove' with regards to theories. They are either supported by the available evidence, or not.)
Not only is "founded on mathematics" about as much snake-oil as "contains herbs" (what herbs? parsley? spinach? lawn clippings? banana leaves?
Founding a theory on mathematics is most convenient because it leads to predictions, and some measure of precision on those predictions, that's all.
All I was saying is, that if 'chi' exists, one ought to be able to obeserve it and measure it in some way. To my knowledge, this hasn't occurred yet. What people have found is some relationship between the meridians and the nervous system. Which, to me, makes 'chi theory' kind of like Aristotle's theory of planetary motion: it sort of worked, but was supplanted by other ideas once we had more information.
The only reason why "pure" mathematics is "true" is because we believe it is true. Think about it.
I suggest you think about it. Mathematical proof are proofs of logic and are inherently self-consistent. They are therefor about as 'true' as anything can be in this world. While mathematics doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality as we see (and measure) it, it just so happens that in many cases it does. If mathematics *didn't* serve as a useful tool to describe physical processes and observed phenomena, we wouldn't be communicating through the interaction of about 500 devices right now, none of which would be even possible to conceive of, let alone construct, without mathematics.
This is how science works: f(1) = 2, f(2) = 4, f(3) = 6, f(4) = 8,... [finite observations]... etc therefore f(x) = x * 2. As you can easily see, it's possible for such generalizations to fail.
Your understanding of how science works is misguided. To use your (limited) analogy, it is more like: We observe 2, 4, 6, 8 We postulate, f(x)=2x, x=1, 2,... We predict: f(5)=10, f(6)=12, f(7)=14 We measure again: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16 We conclude theory is ok for x=5 and look for physical reasons why it falls off, and attempt to refine the theory.
he Big Bang, quantum physics, embryology, string theory... I'd argue that they all meet the criteria for mystical phenomena.
And you would argue out of ignorance. All of those theories are based on observation and founded in mathematics. The concept of 'chi' has no such foundation, and has not stood up to observation.
but the author is clearly aiming for a mainstream audience.
"Expect it to become a best-seller."
Probably not. Best sellers are usually receive a marketing push by the media, which is controlled by...
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive
on
Open Source Molecules
·
· Score: 1
In this case, the company is not private at all, but rather a non-profit organization which has received government money in the past, so they are not paying taxes.
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive
on
Open Source Molecules
·
· Score: 1
now you are just confusing the fact that laws change. Why was it legal for people in Utah to have many wives and now, I'm limited to only 1? Guess what, whether or not you agree with it, laws can change. And that is the explanation(unless in these specific exampes some form of liscensing agreement existed/international laws weren't as standardized at that time).
I'm not confused that laws change. You, however, seem to think that the changing of laws is akin to the weather, or earthquakes, or the tides. And it's true that all of these things happen, like the changing of laws; the difference is, we as a democratic society have a measure of control over HOW our laws are changed, and WHOM they benefit. Or at least we used to. Now, it appears that society is merely content to eat its pizza pockets and bend over as various big money interests line up to bugger it, all the while screaming, "We want SUVs with plasma TV's!"
Last I checked, most humans live less than 100 years. Explain to me what John Lennon's children and grandchildren did to live off the royalties from his works? Explain to me how it was ok for everybody to rip off Chuck Berry's riffs over the last 50+ years, but not ok for Billy D. Williams to use a baseline from "I want a new drug" in "Ghostbusters".
The application and enforcement of copyright is so arbitrary and completely enevenly enforced, the term 'fair' hardly enters into it.
At least when you consider this quote from Steve Jobs:
"When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do."
The G5 is nice, arguably the best microprossor out there in many respects, but it's also power-hungry.
The bottom line is that console manufacturers often heavily subsidize their new machines, swallowing huge losses up front in hopes that they'll make it all back selling games...
Sony didn't and doesn't sell PS2 at a loss, nor does Nintendo and their game cube. The only console maker selling at a loss is MSFT and their XBox. I saw another article somewhere that proved it in Sony's case by looking at Sony's financial statements, but I can't seem to find it right now...
ATi has traditionally had poor OpenGL performance, now this: "It has come to our attention that the "small number of applications" for which Supertiling does not work includes all OpenGL based titles."
I wonder how much ATi's cosy relationship with MSFT has to do with this?
The game console, however has, standard hardware, no installation BS, games designed to play on the lowes common denominator, and a multi-purpose controller. One you'll happily play Quake on, the other you'll happily play Zelda on.
What? Sorry, you can play Quake on your multi-purpose controller, if you want to have one hand figuratively tied behind your back. I'll take my keyboard and mouse combination any day of the week.
As for good AI, look at FPS online games like Quake 3 and UT2k4.
For a moment, I wasn't sure if I'd read the words "Quake 3" and "good AI" in the same sentence. Quake 3's AI is hardly better, unless you count pinpoint accuracy with zero aiming time as being 'intelligent'.
Memtech, eh? Hmm...if this is any indication of the state of the art, I'll stick with regular mechanical drives, thanks: * 26 Mbyte/sec cached Read performance * 20 Mbyte/sec cached Write performance
That kind of performance wasn't good enough 3 years ago, let alone today.
I don't know about 'serious gaming', but Sony, Sega and Nintendo have sold an awful lot of their consoles. PC gaming is a niche market compared to the consoles.
I had a conversation with a collegue the other day. He and his wife fight over their Blackberry to see who gets to use it first. Another friend refers to his as his 'Crackberry', because he can't believe how he got so dependent on it. That kind of 'got to have it' feeling is what will drive the convergence market here. Most cell phones do enough contact management for your average consumer (where price will keep BB and Treo a luxury item) - enough to drive down the market for PDA's. But for business users, especially those in sales, these are definitely 'wanna have' items.
TiVO is a VCR on steroids. The fact that a few hobbyists with Hauppage or All-in-Wonders were doing the same thing years ago is not the same as having a product where a character on "Sex in the City" cries when hers breaks. I really don't see how you don't view a super-programmable video recorder as a convergence of computer technology and home video appliances.
I would suspect those combo printers are not top sellers due to the business markets. I do know that most of my friends have one of those at home because they save desk space.
I think convergence in consumer media products is happening almost subliminally - gradually and inexorably, so that we hardly notice it. But each year they add more features that we get used to, and come to expect. It's only when we look back and remember things like cell phones that didn't even have clocks on them that we realise what's been happening.
...the spoils system inherent in any communist regime has led to a disparity whereby most Cubans live in abject poverty, but the priveledged few live in opulant comfort.
How does this differ from the world's population not living under communist regimes? (Hint: there many people outside of North America and Europe.)
Slashdot Mirror
You know, your faith or lack of it doesn't affect reality in any way, only your interpretation of it. Math, being a purely abstract concept, has no existance beyond that interpretation, whereas any entity either exists or not and has or has not certain attributes independently of your perceptions.
Nah. Reality bites back. You might never perceive that bullet bearing down on your skull - before or after it gets there - but it will make a terrific difference in your perception of reality when it's done.
Like quarks ... where's the objective verification.
Take the time to study nuclear physics and advanced mathematics, and you will be able to understand the experimental evididence for the existence of quarks and decide for yourself whether it is sufficient or lacking. So far, a large majority of those trained in these disciplines agree that the evidence is strong. They are, however, prepared to dump or modify the theory if evidence to the contrary comes along.
Contrast that with the religion of your neighbourhood priest or shaman.
...this to turn into a sort of Scopes Monkey Trial for astrology?
Nobody has ever observed the Big Bang (nor something unequivocally attributable to it), nor a superstring. You could argue about quantum physics, but it would be an uphill battle. Embryology... hmmm... we still have Earnst Haeckel's frauds being touted as truth in textbooks after more than a century. That doesn't bode well.
The beauty of all of the theories you have posed is that they are testable. Either their predictions will observed or they will not. Either way, our knowledge is advanced - whether the theory is 'proved' or not. (I personally dislike the term 'prove' with regards to theories. They are either supported by the available evidence, or not.)
Not only is "founded on mathematics" about as much snake-oil as "contains herbs" (what herbs? parsley? spinach? lawn clippings? banana leaves?
Founding a theory on mathematics is most convenient because it leads to predictions, and some measure of precision on those predictions, that's all.
All I was saying is, that if 'chi' exists, one ought to be able to obeserve it and measure it in some way. To my knowledge, this hasn't occurred yet. What people have found is some relationship between the meridians and the nervous system. Which, to me, makes 'chi theory' kind of like Aristotle's theory of planetary motion: it sort of worked, but was supplanted by other ideas once we had more information.
"Mathematics can not prove itself."
...They are therefore about as 'true' as anything can be in this world
Fine.
What part of that statment was absolute?
Oops. Tried to right in for x less than or equal to 5, but don't know enough HTML to get the less than sign to appear.
The only reason why "pure" mathematics is "true" is because we believe it is true. Think about it.
... [finite observations]... etc therefore f(x) = x * 2. As you can easily see, it's possible for such generalizations to fail.
...
I suggest you think about it. Mathematical proof are proofs of logic and are inherently self-consistent. They are therefor about as 'true' as anything can be in this world. While mathematics doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality as we see (and measure) it, it just so happens that in many cases it does. If mathematics *didn't* serve as a useful tool to describe physical processes and observed phenomena, we wouldn't be communicating through the interaction of about 500 devices right now, none of which would be even possible to conceive of, let alone construct, without mathematics.
This is how science works:
f(1) = 2, f(2) = 4, f(3) = 6, f(4) = 8,
Your understanding of how science works is misguided. To use your (limited) analogy, it is more like:
We observe 2, 4, 6, 8
We postulate, f(x)=2x, x=1, 2,
We predict: f(5)=10, f(6)=12, f(7)=14
We measure again: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16
We conclude theory is ok for x=5 and look for physical reasons why it falls off, and attempt to refine the theory.
he Big Bang, quantum physics, embryology, string theory... I'd argue that they all meet the criteria for mystical phenomena.
And you would argue out of ignorance. All of those theories are based on observation and founded in mathematics. The concept of 'chi' has no such foundation, and has not stood up to observation.
but the author is clearly aiming for a mainstream audience.
"Expect it to become a best-seller."
Probably not. Best sellers are usually receive a marketing push by the media, which is controlled by...
In this case, the company is not private at all, but rather a non-profit organization which has received government money in the past, so they are not paying taxes.
That sounds like a 'right of way'.
now you are just confusing the fact that laws change. Why was it legal for people in Utah to have many wives and now, I'm limited to only 1? Guess what, whether or not you agree with it, laws can change. And that is the explanation(unless in these specific exampes some form of liscensing agreement existed/international laws weren't as standardized at that time).
I'm not confused that laws change. You, however, seem to think that the changing of laws is akin to the weather, or earthquakes, or the tides. And it's true that all of these things happen, like the changing of laws; the difference is, we as a democratic society have a measure of control over HOW our laws are changed, and WHOM they benefit. Or at least we used to. Now, it appears that society is merely content to eat its pizza pockets and bend over as various big money interests line up to bugger it, all the while screaming, "We want SUVs with plasma TV's!"
Doh! You're right.
Last I checked, most humans live less than 100 years. Explain to me what John Lennon's children and grandchildren did to live off the royalties from his works? Explain to me how it was ok for everybody to rip off Chuck Berry's riffs over the last 50+ years, but not ok for Billy D. Williams to use a baseline from "I want a new drug" in "Ghostbusters".
The application and enforcement of copyright is so arbitrary and completely enevenly enforced, the term 'fair' hardly enters into it.
At least when you consider this quote from Steve Jobs:
"When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do."
The G5 is nice, arguably the best microprossor out there in many respects, but it's also power-hungry.
The bottom line is that console manufacturers often heavily subsidize their new machines, swallowing huge losses up front in hopes that they'll make it all back selling games...
Sony didn't and doesn't sell PS2 at a loss, nor does Nintendo and their game cube. The only console maker selling at a loss is MSFT and their XBox. I saw another article somewhere that proved it in Sony's case by looking at Sony's financial statements, but I can't seem to find it right now...
ATi has traditionally had poor OpenGL performance, now this:
"It has come to our attention that the "small number of applications" for which Supertiling does not work includes all OpenGL based titles."
I wonder how much ATi's cosy relationship with MSFT has to do with this?
The game console, however has, standard hardware, no installation BS, games designed to play on the lowes common denominator, and a multi-purpose controller. One you'll happily play Quake on, the other you'll happily play Zelda on.
What? Sorry, you can play Quake on your multi-purpose controller, if you want to have one hand figuratively tied behind your back. I'll take my keyboard and mouse combination any day of the week.
As for good AI, look at FPS online games like Quake 3 and UT2k4.
For a moment, I wasn't sure if I'd read the words "Quake 3" and "good AI" in the same sentence. Quake 3's AI is hardly better, unless you count pinpoint accuracy with zero aiming time as being 'intelligent'.
Memtech, eh? Hmm...if this is any indication of the state of the art, I'll stick with regular mechanical drives, thanks:
* 26 Mbyte/sec cached Read performance
* 20 Mbyte/sec cached Write performance
That kind of performance wasn't good enough 3 years ago, let alone today.
I don't know about 'serious gaming', but Sony, Sega and Nintendo have sold an awful lot of their consoles. PC gaming is a niche market compared to the consoles.
I had a conversation with a collegue the other day. He and his wife fight over their Blackberry to see who gets to use it first. Another friend refers to his as his 'Crackberry', because he can't believe how he got so dependent on it. That kind of 'got to have it' feeling is what will drive the convergence market here. Most cell phones do enough contact management for your average consumer (where price will keep BB and Treo a luxury item) - enough to drive down the market for PDA's. But for business users, especially those in sales, these are definitely 'wanna have' items.
TiVO is a VCR on steroids. The fact that a few hobbyists with Hauppage or All-in-Wonders were doing the same thing years ago is not the same as having a product where a character on "Sex in the City" cries when hers breaks. I really don't see how you don't view a super-programmable video recorder as a convergence of computer technology and home video appliances.
I would suspect those combo printers are not top sellers due to the business markets. I do know that most of my friends have one of those at home because they save desk space.
I think convergence in consumer media products is happening almost subliminally - gradually and inexorably, so that we hardly notice it. But each year they add more features that we get used to, and come to expect. It's only when we look back and remember things like cell phones that didn't even have clocks on them that we realise what's been happening.
...the spoils system inherent in any communist regime has led to a disparity whereby most Cubans live in abject poverty, but the priveledged few live in opulant comfort.
How does this differ from the world's population not living under communist regimes? (Hint: there many people outside of North America and Europe.)
TiVO is almost a convergence device. It's basically a merger between a VCR and a computer. Dump in a web browser and keyboard, and you're done.
People aren't buying blackberrys and media PC's? I think they are.
Right. No convergence in gaming consoles. That's why you can't play a DVD in a PS2/Xbox, or play against your friends online...oh, wait...
Right. Convergence isn't taking off at all. That's why nobody is buying Blackberrys (oops), or TiVO's (oops again), or media PCs...er, nevermind.
Heck, my cell phone has a USB plug, but I'll be damned if I can't use it for more than just synchronizing my address book.
Luxury! In my day, we had to synchronize our address books, by hand! In stone! Using our bare hands! And we liked it!
Seriously. I can't even synch my phone. It has all the connectivity, but Samsung never bothered to mnake the cable...