First, the unlikely happens. If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, the odds of that exact sequence of results is astronomically small (1/2^1,000,000). If something happened against the odds, that isn't magic its happenstance.
Second, this argument is terrible.
The article is a good read. It basically covers how incredibly narrow the limits are concerning the laws of nature. If any one of them was just an astronomically small amount different, then the Universe would not exist as we know it, and certainly life would not form. Which leads your budding C/ID believer to ask, "what are the odds of this happening by chance?"
Why would life not form? Because the laws of nature say so? But we just established the laws of nature are not the same in this alternate universe. Its a variation on the first fallacy. "Life" has the characteristics of this universe because it exists in this universe. If there was another set of rules, life might be much more likely, much less likely, extremely different or very similar.
Don't let facts get in the way. Global warming can't be real because the Republicans say so. Science, law, reality, logic and previous statements Republicans have made that contradict the present positions are all just part of the liberal bias of reality.
nanopaper has the potential to be cheaper than more-exotic, expensive-to-produce nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes
The submitter made a leap in logic. Just because "cellulose is the most abundant organic compound on the planet" doesn't mean this finished product is "cheap to use". Silicone is cheap to use, but we don't have 1 GB L1 Caches, do we? The production costs involved with making this product aren't mentioned, only that potentially they could be cheaper. But that would require some work and some luck. This is still only a potential and requires more than just cellulose:
They did this by breaking down wood pulp in water with a combination of enzymes and mechanically beating it further. The result: defect-free nanofibers about 1000 times smaller than typical cellulose fibers. As a final step, the researchers treated their nanofibers with carboxymethanol, which coated the fibers in carboxyl groups.
Also, current (semi)practical carbon nanotube material has tensile strength up to 6x what is cited in this article and at the microscopic level is closer to 300x (63 gigapascals according to the all powerful wiki gods).
The next generation is always considered dumber and more dangerous/reckless than the previous generation(s). There are articles in the NY Times archive from the mid 1800s about the imminent fall of society due to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's (or yesterday's) youth. These complaints rarely have any actual basis in reality. Test scores on mathematical reasoning is almost unchanged over the last 50 years (and IQ test scores have actually increased dramatically for what thats worth). Test scores by the government show no change. Literacy rates are difficult to determine (the illiterate rarely fill out census forms for instance) but the research does not show an increase in illiteracy either. Nostalgia is a powerful thing.
Technology can have negative consequences but for every actual negative consequence that occurs due to a world changing technology (or cultural change), there are many that are predicted and never occur.
The article is conjecture built atop unsupported claims and baseless assumption. The full article isn't online yet but even form the passage cited has multiple examples.
As we use what the sociologist Daniel Bell has called our "intellectual technologies"--the tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities--we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies.
Really? Based on what exactly? Its a pretty strong statement and one that requires actual backing instead of a statement from authority.
The ability to quick retrieve information is not inherently "dumbing" any more than an automatic transmission makes one a bad driver. But even if that was true, the author makes a huge assumption in the nature of Internet technology. Who says it will remain the way it currently is? The medium still has almost unlimited potential for growth, and the argument is essentially assuming the usage with remain the same or become less intellectual. He assumes we'll become dumb because we won't be able to elevate the medium. We will become dumb because we are dumb.....
I do want Obama to be President. However, I don't vote entirely on tech issues (its way down the line for me). If the question was who knew more about Vietnam or Arizona or who new the most about life as a sailor, McCain would be the obvious answer. That wouldn't mean I'd vote for him.
Damn youngsters with the gyrating pelvis and long hair and hippy polio vaccine!
Cry me a river geezer. Your age issues are your problem. For someone so wise and learned, you'd think you'd know that ENIAC (the remnants of which I've touched) wasn't the first electronic programmable computer. Educate yourself
Did the guys who worked on the Model T know more about computers than mechanics today? Your own bias towards "the good old days" is BS. I can (and have) program in assembly. I can and have programmed in punch cards. Its a stupid thing to do in 99% of situations for the former and 100% for the latter. Having used old computers doesn't mean you know more about computers.
If you had used the creaky mass of matter in your skull instead of knee jerked based on your own age insecurities you'd realize that there is a strong inverse correlation between age and familiarity with technology, especially . Most five year olds know more about surfing the web than more 70 year olds. John McCain is older than concept of the Universal Turing Machine. If you don't think that informs his tech knowledge, I have a series of tubes to sell you.
On the other hand, I think McCain grew up with Alan Turing's Dad so...
I mean, is there really any doubt on which one is more "tech savvy"? If their ages don't make it completely obvious, look at Obama's website, his government transparency (available online), and his simple familiarity with the issues.
A 47 year old recent Constitutional law professor (universities tend to have a couple uses for the inter-tubes) whose campaign uses the Internet as its central tool vs a 72 year old guy who has been in the Legislature since 640K was enough for anyone?
Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Nov 07, 2000 11:00 PM from the we're-not-done-yet dept. United States Things shuffled a bit as CNN recalled Florida from Gore, and left the electoral votes at 217 for Bush and 172 for the VP. Things have kind of lagged a bit as apparently the wires are being a little more careful about calling states. And I was hoping to get to bed on time *grin.* Update: 11pm EST by CT : polls on the west coast have closed, Gore inched up 230/217. Update: 11/08 5:45 AM EST by C:By now you all know that Florida, originally awarded to Gore, then later awarded to Bush, is now recounting the votes in a race that is way too close to call. Surprisingly enough, it appears that Gore has now won the popular vote. With the results split between the EC and the people, will this affect how the next president will be able to govern the U.S.?
Note the part 2. Politics (whether through big stories or YRO) has always been covered here.
We do have one Muslim Congressman (Ellison from Minn.) but thats the exception. During this election all across "Appalachia" rednecks (culturally reactionary, uneducated, unskilled rural whites) said they would never vote Obama because he was a "Muslim". Of course, he's not a Muslim and for many that was just code for "black." However, the news reporters didn't even blink... as if that was a valid reason for not voting for him.
First, how is he black, when he has the same % being white? How would it make him a first black president? First mulatto president. Saying he is first black is as disgenious as calling you a woman because you have half of the genome to be one. Is USA so racist that we label people by the color of their skin?
and a sore loser. Right now she's still steaming and trying to plot a new course for the only person she ever cared about in this election (herself). She'll be back in a new form soon enough (no doubt trying to strong-arm her way into the VP spot).
I can't entirely argue with this. Still, that's how politics and politicians work. You don't get to run for president otherwise, unless you inherit the position (like our current president) or make a name for yourself outside of politics.
I think the current Democratic nominee for PotUS kinda disproves this. While of course he's no angel, it pretty hard to argue that he's self-obsessed, inherited the position or made a name for himself outside of politics.
No it doesn't. There's a 100+ pledged delegate lead.
Then there's another 100+ superdelegate lead. And it'll get bigger today. Plus, HRC's supers are going to abandon her in droves starting this week when Pelosi, Reid and Gore put their foot (feet) down.
Except in a religious context it doesn't. And a fundamentalist Christian in modern context does not mean what you're pretending it means. Jerry Falwell, George W Bush and John Hagee are not loving, turn-the-other-cheek types are they?
Even if this was perfectly efficient, I'm pretty sure there's more than 256 * 1024 things you could have an image of out there. The amount of information this analysis could give just can't be very useful.
Thats not meant to disparage the work - image recognition is important and difficult. This particular 'advance' just isn't that 'advancing'
OK lets assume for a moment there is demand for this.
Who controls the "spur"? If 45% want to not defect, 30% want to defect to Constellation B and 25% want to defect to Constellation C, who gets it?
What happens when 51% of the spur decides left handed people should have to primarily use their right hand from now on? Or they get shot in the face. Or maybe instead of 51% I just mean the security force who just took over. Or the pirates who decided they wanted a nice home.
Oh I see, you'd only be oppressed by your individual spur, not by "society." I guess you could always leave the spur, and whatever thousands of dollars you've invested in living there.
Well, that assumes you can leave the spur considering its in the middle of the ocean in international waters. And that assumes whoever is in control of the spur allows people to leave.
And that ignores the practicalities of security (from 'pirates', people who just invade your home and just plain psychos), logistics (massive unit cost, data transmission), lack of demand, international relations (boy it does suck that our supertankers are throwing massive waves over your spurs and making your life unlivable) and a lack of safety net (Hurricane, Smuricane! Sinking ship, sminking smip!).
This is a fantasy for people who live in a secure society who believe they are being held back by the very stability that allows them to survive and thrive. Too much government intrudes on the rights of individuals. No government leaves them completely vulnerable.
Second, if three dudes and two chicks or five chicks and dude or two dudes and a transvestite want to shack up, more power to them. Polygamy as a recognized civil marriage/union is only problematic in that it allows chaining and isn't very scalable.
ie If Jim wants to marry Jane, everything is cool (and eventually Jim and Joe will be cool outside my home state) If Jim wants to marry Mary then, does Jane have to marry Mary, or can he be married to two people who have no official relationship? The problem becomes apparent when one realizes the traditional special privileges involved with the marital bond (in terms of testimony, economic rights, etc). Having the mafia all "married" to each other would certainly cause some issues.
There's also the connection between communities of polygamists and child abuse but on an individual family scale one would think this wouldn't be an issue.
Third, allowing polygamy wouldn't make it unweird. After all, Furries are allowed to exist.
Happens to be in public, but not "for the public". Makes a big difference if public means 'the people around you' or '1.23 billion people connected to the same network'.
Why? You have a right to privacy in your own home, and in certain other circumstances. If you concede that acting in public surrenders your privacy pertaining to that particular time and action, I don't see how the number of people who see you changes that.
If I'm not paying attention and I scratch my crotch in front of 10 people I didn't see it doesn't mean my privacy has been violated. If I do so as I wander out onto a stage where Obama is giving a speech just before the Pope and 100K see me, my privacy isn't violated. If I do so while outside Good Morning America that doesn't mean my privacy has been violated. And if I am coincidentally caught by a mapping camera that can be widely accessed that doesn't mean my privacy has been violated.
I think you might think that because you are a Mormon. Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel, the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri, history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice), the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom" and the structure and demands of the church is weird.
Weird is not inherently good or bad. This isn't an attack on Mormonism. But realistically LDS is a church that formed as what was considered then (and would be now) a cult with frankly bizarre practices and beliefs that retreated from developed areas of America and formed its own isolated community. The fact that some of the stranger pieces of theology have been disavowed or deemphasized and that the membership has increased greatly doesn't change that its a weird church.
" The difference between us is that I actually make enough money from Ender's Game to be content, without having to try to punish other people whose creativity might have been inspired by something I wrote."
Which conveniently ignores his attempts to get Ender's Game made into a movie. They have failed to get financial backing which is more likely the source of his bitterness. Part of the problem is that no one else could produce an acceptable script so he's taken control over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, this argument is terrible.
Why would life not form? Because the laws of nature say so? But we just established the laws of nature are not the same in this alternate universe. Its a variation on the first fallacy. "Life" has the characteristics of this universe because it exists in this universe. If there was another set of rules, life might be much more likely, much less likely, extremely different or very similar.
Don't let facts get in the way. Global warming can't be real because the Republicans say so. Science, law, reality, logic and previous statements Republicans have made that contradict the present positions are all just part of the liberal bias of reality.
The submitter made a leap in logic. Just because "cellulose is the most abundant organic compound on the planet" doesn't mean this finished product is "cheap to use". Silicone is cheap to use, but we don't have 1 GB L1 Caches, do we? The production costs involved with making this product aren't mentioned, only that potentially they could be cheaper. But that would require some work and some luck. This is still only a potential and requires more than just cellulose:
Also, current (semi)practical carbon nanotube material has tensile strength up to 6x what is cited in this article and at the microscopic level is closer to 300x (63 gigapascals according to the all powerful wiki gods).
Now was this written in 2008, 1908 or 808.
The next generation is always considered dumber and more dangerous/reckless than the previous generation(s). There are articles in the NY Times archive from the mid 1800s about the imminent fall of society due to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's (or yesterday's) youth. These complaints rarely have any actual basis in reality. Test scores on mathematical reasoning is almost unchanged over the last 50 years (and IQ test scores have actually increased dramatically for what thats worth). Test scores by the government show no change. Literacy rates are difficult to determine (the illiterate rarely fill out census forms for instance) but the research does not show an increase in illiteracy either. Nostalgia is a powerful thing.
The article is conjecture built atop unsupported claims and baseless assumption. The full article isn't online yet but even form the passage cited has multiple examples.
Really? Based on what exactly? Its a pretty strong statement and one that requires actual backing instead of a statement from authority.
The ability to quick retrieve information is not inherently "dumbing" any more than an automatic transmission makes one a bad driver. But even if that was true, the author makes a huge assumption in the nature of Internet technology. Who says it will remain the way it currently is? The medium still has almost unlimited potential for growth, and the argument is essentially assuming the usage with remain the same or become less intellectual. He assumes we'll become dumb because we won't be able to elevate the medium. We will become dumb because we are dumb.....
Pretty tough since his Dad was born in Kenya and belonged to a specific African tribe.
I do want Obama to be President. However, I don't vote entirely on tech issues (its way down the line for me). If the question was who knew more about Vietnam or Arizona or who new the most about life as a sailor, McCain would be the obvious answer. That wouldn't mean I'd vote for him.
Yes he was.
Damn youngsters with the gyrating pelvis and long hair and hippy polio vaccine!
Cry me a river geezer. Your age issues are your problem. For someone so wise and learned, you'd think you'd know that ENIAC (the remnants of which I've touched) wasn't the first electronic programmable computer. Educate yourself
Did the guys who worked on the Model T know more about computers than mechanics today? Your own bias towards "the good old days" is BS. I can (and have) program in assembly. I can and have programmed in punch cards. Its a stupid thing to do in 99% of situations for the former and 100% for the latter. Having used old computers doesn't mean you know more about computers.
If you had used the creaky mass of matter in your skull instead of knee jerked based on your own age insecurities you'd realize that there is a strong inverse correlation between age and familiarity with technology, especially . Most five year olds know more about surfing the web than more 70 year olds. John McCain is older than concept of the Universal Turing Machine. If you don't think that informs his tech knowledge, I have a series of tubes to sell you.
I have people skills! I deal with the god damn voters so the experts don't have to!
Well Obama is good friends with Lawrence Lessig.
On the other hand, I think McCain grew up with Alan Turing's Dad so...
I mean, is there really any doubt on which one is more "tech savvy"? If their ages don't make it completely obvious, look at Obama's website, his government transparency (available online), and his simple familiarity with the issues.
A 47 year old recent Constitutional law professor (universities tend to have a couple uses for the inter-tubes) whose campaign uses the Internet as its central tool vs a 72 year old guy who has been in the Legislature since 640K was enough for anyone?
Election Wrapping Up (Part 2)
Note the part 2. Politics (whether through big stories or YRO) has always been covered here.
We do have one Muslim Congressman (Ellison from Minn.) but thats the exception. During this election all across "Appalachia" rednecks (culturally reactionary, uneducated, unskilled rural whites) said they would never vote Obama because he was a "Muslim". Of course, he's not a Muslim and for many that was just code for "black." However, the news reporters didn't even blink... as if that was a valid reason for not voting for him.
Yes.
What part of "black" did you not understand?
I think the current Democratic nominee for PotUS kinda disproves this. While of course he's no angel, it pretty hard to argue that he's self-obsessed, inherited the position or made a name for himself outside of politics.
No it doesn't. There's a 100+ pledged delegate lead.
Then there's another 100+ superdelegate lead. And it'll get bigger today. Plus, HRC's supers are going to abandon her in droves starting this week when Pelosi, Reid and Gore put their foot (feet) down.
And "catholic" means liberal.
Except in a religious context it doesn't. And a fundamentalist Christian in modern context does not mean what you're pretending it means. Jerry Falwell, George W Bush and John Hagee are not loving, turn-the-other-cheek types are they?
nt
Even if this was perfectly efficient, I'm pretty sure there's more than 256 * 1024 things you could have an image of out there. The amount of information this analysis could give just can't be very useful.
Thats not meant to disparage the work - image recognition is important and difficult. This particular 'advance' just isn't that 'advancing'
OK lets assume for a moment there is demand for this.
Who controls the "spur"? If 45% want to not defect, 30% want to defect to Constellation B and 25% want to defect to Constellation C, who gets it?
What happens when 51% of the spur decides left handed people should have to primarily use their right hand from now on? Or they get shot in the face. Or maybe instead of 51% I just mean the security force who just took over. Or the pirates who decided they wanted a nice home.
Oh I see, you'd only be oppressed by your individual spur, not by "society." I guess you could always leave the spur, and whatever thousands of dollars you've invested in living there.
Well, that assumes you can leave the spur considering its in the middle of the ocean in international waters. And that assumes whoever is in control of the spur allows people to leave.
And that ignores the practicalities of security (from 'pirates', people who just invade your home and just plain psychos), logistics (massive unit cost, data transmission), lack of demand, international relations (boy it does suck that our supertankers are throwing massive waves over your spurs and making your life unlivable) and a lack of safety net (Hurricane, Smuricane! Sinking ship, sminking smip!).
This is a fantasy for people who live in a secure society who believe they are being held back by the very stability that allows them to survive and thrive. Too much government intrudes on the rights of individuals. No government leaves them completely vulnerable.
First, again weird != wrong || bad.
Second, if three dudes and two chicks or five chicks and dude or two dudes and a transvestite want to shack up, more power to them. Polygamy as a recognized civil marriage/union is only problematic in that it allows chaining and isn't very scalable.
ie
If Jim wants to marry Jane, everything is cool (and eventually Jim and Joe will be cool outside my home state)
If Jim wants to marry Mary then, does Jane have to marry Mary, or can he be married to two people who have no official relationship? The problem becomes apparent when one realizes the traditional special privileges involved with the marital bond (in terms of testimony, economic rights, etc). Having the mafia all "married" to each other would certainly cause some issues.
There's also the connection between communities of polygamists and child abuse but on an individual family scale one would think this wouldn't be an issue.
Third, allowing polygamy wouldn't make it unweird. After all, Furries are allowed to exist.
Why? You have a right to privacy in your own home, and in certain other circumstances. If you concede that acting in public surrenders your privacy pertaining to that particular time and action, I don't see how the number of people who see you changes that.
If I'm not paying attention and I scratch my crotch in front of 10 people I didn't see it doesn't mean my privacy has been violated.
If I do so as I wander out onto a stage where Obama is giving a speech just before the Pope and 100K see me, my privacy isn't violated.
If I do so while outside Good Morning America that doesn't mean my privacy has been violated.
And if I am coincidentally caught by a mapping camera that can be widely accessed that doesn't mean my privacy has been violated.
I think you might think that because you are a Mormon. Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel, the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri, history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice), the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom" and the structure and demands of the church is weird.
Weird is not inherently good or bad. This isn't an attack on Mormonism. But realistically LDS is a church that formed as what was considered then (and would be now) a cult with frankly bizarre practices and beliefs that retreated from developed areas of America and formed its own isolated community. The fact that some of the stranger pieces of theology have been disavowed or deemphasized and that the membership has increased greatly doesn't change that its a weird church.
You know, like an older sibling.
Which conveniently ignores his attempts to get Ender's Game made into a movie. They have failed to get financial backing which is more likely the source of his bitterness. Part of the problem is that no one else could produce an acceptable script so he's taken control over it.