Or is this simply until the RIAA frames their arguments differently.
That's happening right now, but in the Legislative branch of the government. You probably already know this, but the **IA are pumping bills into Capitol Hill that are essentially restating proposed new law that was already shot down in the form of the INDUCE ACT.
It's all a continued, concerted effort to emasculate the Sony/Betamax decision. Shameless.
I'll tell you what I'm doing: I think I'm convincing myself the empiricists are right and nothing is a priori knowledge, by assuming the rationalists are correct.
Most conservatives would recognize that the changes being proposed to "solve" global warming are going to affect far more than the common practices of a "few."
It's possible. But the lion's share of Usian pollutants are trivially minimized (we have the technology), and we don't do any real heavy manufacturing here anymore. So it's also possible not. I haven't seen much more'n histrionics and hand waving from the multinationals. Oh, and appeals to nationalistic necessity. Where were they when GATT, NAFTA, and the overseas outsourcing became issues?
"The CO2 fraction on Point Conception weather station at noon on Aug. 21 1999 was 1.2224%" (or whatever). That is a synthetic proposition. Do that 'til the cows come home and you have a bunch of data, but you imply it's no longer a priori to say the CO2 fraction has continuously risen above previous data points. Is that right?
But that initial phrase I made was contingent and a priori. Is the average taken over one year no longer a priori? And is the integral of the slope of those averages taken over time no longer a priori?
My thoughts were influenced by this:
Saul Kripke argues in Naming and Necessity, against Kant, that aprioricity is an epistemological property, and should not be conflated with the separate, metaphysical matter of necessity. In support of this argument he offers several pleas to intuition: "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is necessary if true (see rigid designation), but known a posteriori; while, on the other hand, (of the bar in Paris that formerly served as the standard for the meter), "That bar is one meter long" is contingent (we could have taken another length to define the meter, etc.) but known a priori. That is because one meter is defined as the length of that bar, so the bar must be one meter long - it is a tautology.
And, there is evidently some controversy over a priori that you don't mention in your post. I'm curious how you would address this.
Well if the minority view continues to maintain common features and those common features are those of a mover acting with an occult bias, feel no shame in thinking the perspective is specious.
And, that is not independent verification, that is gaming the system. See my other post regarding this.
We aren't necessarily liberals. It is not a requirement that we be liberals only to recognize that societal intervention in the common practices of a few be imposed.
It is the form that intervention takes that lends the flavor of politics to the situation. The nature of the problem dictates, however, that we use whatever means we have available to us to enact change NOW, rather than waiting until some form of governance to bloom that is more amenable to your peculiar sensitivities.
...I should add that this is valid when the speaker or mover is creating a controversy calling in question the conclusions make by experts in the field whose intent merely supports the status quo.
C02 has physical properties such that it creates a heat retaining insulating blanket around the globe. And it is beyond dispute that both CO2 levels and temperature are rising.
This is probably about as well established as the gravitational effect the earth and the moon exert on one another. But proven? You would have to look at Hume's treatment of causality. Most scientists (and other rational people) have taken Kant as an antidote to your problem.
Last time I checked, not a whole lot has been PROVEN about global warming.
Both the CO2 levels and average temperature are rising. That's a priori knowledge beyond dispute.
You are laboring under some misapprehension. Global warming is a reality. There is a small cadre of pseudo-scientists (they are working outside their domain of knowledge in an area of science which is notoriously inaccessible) in the pay of the big polluters that are casting about for any indication it may not be caused by human activities. And the refutation of their so-called analyses are done in the scientific community and the scientific community lays the controversy to rest. Unfortunately, the "skeptics" have chosen a public forum to air their notions, and that's all their masters really wanted: a way to influence public policy comprising an end run around the experts and their inconvenient opinions.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition notes are public domain.
Re:Aren't Intel's compilers simply a "spin off" pr
on
Crossroads for Intel
·
· Score: 1
Are Intels compilers really there as a full business in and of itself, or is it some auxillary "side benefit" of their processor business.
I think it's just a demo to convince companies to buy the real product: access to intel's algorithms for the compiler developed to optimize instructions historically left to the cpu.
Somewhere within Compaq is a whitepaper describing optimizations available on the alpha platform that need to be either hand-coded or written in as compiler optimizations on the Itanium.
I thought this requirement of the compiler would be met when HP decided to use Linux on the Itanium, but it didn't happen. In fact, what happened is that you may compile Linux using ICC.
(could be wrong, no links to review and too lazy to find them!)
probably kill it since I doubt he will be too friendly with corporations
Sure if by "corporations" you mean Bechtel and Halliburton. More money fled the economy after Bush won than ever. 9/11 is a tiny blip on the landslide fall of the economy after Bush started looking likely in the polls in 2000.
Most businesses are considered "cyclical". Basically, this means they do better whent he economy is better, worse when the economy is worse.
If that is true, I have to wonder about the people that hold this definition. It is completely orthogonal to what I've always imagined "cyclical" to mean.
I suppose "reactive" or some other definition implying direct proportionality to the amount of money being spent would scare the investment marketeers.
Cycle very strongly implies some periodic nature to the swing of the economy, of which there are enough of to have a descriptive term. What do you call that, then?
Yes, part of the reason it's there is to ensure that the whatever electronic device meets safety guidlines and standards so little Johnny doesn't get the worst electric shock of his just ended life just for turning the thing on; or so you don't get brain cancer just so you can get a better signal on your wireless.
Safety is completely irrelevant to the FCC's regulatory domain.
The FCC requires that the receiver not transmit interfering radiation, and can't be used to shut down a legitimate sender if it fails to prevent interference from a legiimate signal.
UL is an authority for electrical safety.
I'm not sure if the FCC regulates radiation based on safety concerns. That's entirely possible, but irrelevant to the rules for type 15 appliances.
I don't know what you mean by that, but most suppositories, regardless of the goal intended for it (inflammation, spermicide, whatever) are design to dissolve into a foamy emulsion.
it's not like preventing pregnancy, where we just have to stop the sperm from surviving past the cervix
Please explain. To my mind, it is precisely like stopping sperm. The fact sperm are motile is irrelevant. If the virus are released in a mileu in which they will be coated by inhibitory agents your goal is met.
And, I'm definitely not recommending against the use of condoms. Don't know where you got that idea. With such an agent you can multiply the probabilities of contracting anything and lower infection rate.
Because of the medicine's structure, the virus can't affect it, but how does that help your own cells, which do NOT have that protection?
The "medicine" is the unmutated, exposed part of the protein receptor, a recombinant protein, and a delivery mechanism (probably linked to an Immunoglobulin stalk, in an emulsion in suppository form.)
Placed prior to sexual intercourse, the recombinant protein would competitively bind to the HIV surface and render it harmless.
It just doesn't make any sense... and I'm working on AIDS, I should know
I don't think cooking Meals On Wheels counts as "working on AIDS".:)
Seriously, it's simple to think up the scenario the researcher was hoping to employ.
The gene encodes a receptor, the conformation of which is altered by the mutation. This renders the binding step of the virus inoperable. Any application couldn't alter all the receptors in the patient inoperable, that's true enough.
But a suppository having LARGE quantities of the receptors unmutated binding site could act to competitively inhibit binding to cell membrane bound receptors. Thereupon the inactivated virus would simply pass out of the... cavity.
That depends on how The Supremes interpret Congresses authority to grant copy rights for "a limited time".
As has been stated elsewhen, copyright protection mechanisms do not acknowledge copyright expiration (or fair use, for that matter) and exceed the mandate.
You have strange notions of novel. That's like tacking "... on the Internet" onto the end of something that begins with "A method for..." and calling it novel.
Actually theres an article in this months SciAm that talks exactly about this.
Exactly? The article you've linked to (what I can see of it; I'm not a subscriber) appears to be about RNA's role in the regulation of genes.
There's nothing about "Junk DNA", although I know introns play a role in the regulation of a genes transclation. Nobody calls the DNA in those regions "junk" DNA, though.
Having not been able to read the full article, however, I may have missed some important link into the "junk" DNA to which you refer.
Slashdot Mirror
Or is this simply until the RIAA frames their arguments differently.
/. article and more here.
That's happening right now, but in the Legislative branch of the government. You probably already know this, but the **IA are pumping bills into Capitol Hill that are essentially restating proposed new law that was already shot down in the form of the INDUCE ACT.
It's all a continued, concerted effort to emasculate the Sony/Betamax decision. Shameless.
see the previous
This is only one of the cases the **IA submitted for review by the SCOTUS.
I'm still on the edge of my seat.
Nope, no controversy, just a matter of definition:
You are in denial if you think there is no controversy regarding a priori.
I'm leaning towards the empiricists (that there is no fact known a priori).
I'll tell you what I'm doing: I think I'm convincing myself the empiricists are right and nothing is a priori knowledge, by assuming the rationalists are correct.
2 + 2 = 4
(data set) + (math technique) = (trend)
Most conservatives would recognize that the changes being proposed to "solve" global warming are going to affect far more than the common practices of a "few."
It's possible. But the lion's share of Usian pollutants are trivially minimized (we have the technology), and we don't do any real heavy manufacturing here anymore. So it's also possible not. I haven't seen much more'n histrionics and hand waving from the multinationals. Oh, and appeals to nationalistic necessity. Where were they when GATT, NAFTA, and the overseas outsourcing became issues?
"The CO2 fraction on Point Conception weather station at noon on Aug. 21 1999 was 1.2224%" (or whatever). That is a synthetic proposition. Do that 'til the cows come home and you have a bunch of data, but you imply it's no longer a priori to say the CO2 fraction has continuously risen above previous data points. Is that right?
But that initial phrase I made was contingent and a priori. Is the average taken over one year no longer a priori? And is the integral of the slope of those averages taken over time no longer a priori?
My thoughts were influenced by this:And, there is evidently some controversy over a priori that you don't mention in your post. I'm curious how you would address this.
Thanks,
I keep seeing arguments against irrelevant points being made without even propping up the argument they oppose before knocking it down.
Jousting haystacks, as it were...
Well if the minority view continues to maintain common features and those common features are those of a mover acting with an occult bias, feel no shame in thinking the perspective is specious.
And, that is not independent verification, that is gaming the system. See my other post regarding this.
Come on guys, your liberalism is showing.
We aren't necessarily liberals. It is not a requirement that we be liberals only to recognize that societal intervention in the common practices of a few be imposed.
It is the form that intervention takes that lends the flavor of politics to the situation. The nature of the problem dictates, however, that we use whatever means we have available to us to enact change NOW, rather than waiting until some form of governance to bloom that is more amenable to your peculiar sensitivities.
So stop calling people names.
...I should add that this is valid when the speaker or mover is creating a controversy calling in question the conclusions make by experts in the field whose intent merely supports the status quo.
It is an ad hominem to demonstrate the speaker or mover has a conflict of interest that renders any conclusions he may have suspect.
But, that is a valid argument just the same.
C02 has physical properties such that it creates a heat retaining insulating blanket around the globe. And it is beyond dispute that both CO2 levels and temperature are rising.
This is probably about as well established as the gravitational effect the earth and the moon exert on one another. But proven? You would have to look at Hume's treatment of causality. Most scientists (and other rational people) have taken Kant as an antidote to your problem.
Last time I checked, not a whole lot has been PROVEN about global warming.
Both the CO2 levels and average temperature are rising. That's a priori knowledge beyond dispute.
You are laboring under some misapprehension. Global warming is a reality. There is a small cadre of pseudo-scientists (they are working outside their domain of knowledge in an area of science which is notoriously inaccessible) in the pay of the big polluters that are casting about for any indication it may not be caused by human activities. And the refutation of their so-called analyses are done in the scientific community and the scientific community lays the controversy to rest. Unfortunately, the "skeptics" have chosen a public forum to air their notions, and that's all their masters really wanted: a way to influence public policy comprising an end run around the experts and their inconvenient opinions.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition notes are public domain.
Are Intels compilers really there as a full business in and of itself, or is it some auxillary "side benefit" of their processor business.
I think it's just a demo to convince companies to buy the real product: access to intel's algorithms for the compiler developed to optimize instructions historically left to the cpu.
Somewhere within Compaq is a whitepaper describing optimizations available on the alpha platform that need to be either hand-coded or written in as compiler optimizations on the Itanium.
I thought this requirement of the compiler would be met when HP decided to use Linux on the Itanium, but it didn't happen. In fact, what happened is that you may compile Linux using ICC.
(could be wrong, no links to review and too lazy to find them!)
probably kill it since I doubt he will be too friendly with corporations
Sure if by "corporations" you mean Bechtel and Halliburton. More money fled the economy after Bush won than ever. 9/11 is a tiny blip on the landslide fall of the economy after Bush started looking likely in the polls in 2000.
I think Bush scares the f**k out of business.
Most businesses are considered "cyclical". Basically, this means they do better whent he economy is better, worse when the economy is worse.
If that is true, I have to wonder about the people that hold this definition. It is completely orthogonal to what I've always imagined "cyclical" to mean.
I suppose "reactive" or some other definition implying direct proportionality to the amount of money being spent would scare the investment marketeers.
Cycle very strongly implies some periodic nature to the swing of the economy, of which there are enough of to have a descriptive term. What do you call that, then?
Yes, part of the reason it's there is to ensure that the whatever electronic device meets safety guidlines and standards so little Johnny doesn't get the worst electric shock of his just ended life just for turning the thing on; or so you don't get brain cancer just so you can get a better signal on your wireless.
Safety is completely irrelevant to the FCC's regulatory domain.
The FCC requires that the receiver not transmit interfering radiation, and can't be used to shut down a legitimate sender if it fails to prevent interference from a legiimate signal.
UL is an authority for electrical safety.
I'm not sure if the FCC regulates radiation based on safety concerns. That's entirely possible, but irrelevant to the rules for type 15 appliances.
A simple suppository wouldn't do it
I don't know what you mean by that, but most suppositories, regardless of the goal intended for it (inflammation, spermicide, whatever) are design to dissolve into a foamy emulsion.
it's not like preventing pregnancy, where we just have to stop the sperm from surviving past the cervix
Please explain. To my mind, it is precisely like stopping sperm. The fact sperm are motile is irrelevant. If the virus are released in a mileu in which they will be coated by inhibitory agents your goal is met.
And, I'm definitely not recommending against the use of condoms. Don't know where you got that idea. With such an agent you can multiply the probabilities of contracting anything and lower infection rate.
[voilaviola: can't resist the old joke...]
Because of the medicine's structure, the virus can't affect it, but how does that help your own cells, which do NOT have that protection?
The "medicine" is the unmutated, exposed part of the protein receptor, a recombinant protein, and a delivery mechanism (probably linked to an Immunoglobulin stalk, in an emulsion in suppository form.)
Placed prior to sexual intercourse, the recombinant protein would competitively bind to the HIV surface and render it harmless.
It just doesn't make any sense... and I'm working on AIDS, I should know
:)
I don't think cooking Meals On Wheels counts as "working on AIDS".
Seriously, it's simple to think up the scenario the researcher was hoping to employ.
The gene encodes a receptor, the conformation of which is altered by the mutation. This renders the binding step of the virus inoperable. Any application couldn't alter all the receptors in the patient inoperable, that's true enough.
But a suppository having LARGE quantities of the receptors unmutated binding site could act to competitively inhibit binding to cell membrane bound receptors. Thereupon the inactivated virus would simply pass out of the... cavity.
And VIOLA, temporary immunity.
That depends on how The Supremes interpret Congresses authority to grant copy rights for "a limited time".
As has been stated elsewhen, copyright protection mechanisms do not acknowledge copyright expiration (or fair use, for that matter) and exceed the mandate.
You have strange notions of novel. That's like tacking "... on the Internet" onto the end of something that begins with "A method for..." and calling it novel.
Actually theres an article in this months SciAm that talks exactly about this.
Exactly? The article you've linked to (what I can see of it; I'm not a subscriber) appears to be about RNA's role in the regulation of genes.
There's nothing about "Junk DNA", although I know introns play a role in the regulation of a genes transclation. Nobody calls the DNA in those regions "junk" DNA, though.
Having not been able to read the full article, however, I may have missed some important link into the "junk" DNA to which you refer.
It does look like a novel approach
Novel? This stuff is old hat.