My main problem with saying that evolution is a scientific fact/law is that it is so often construed to imply an objective fact, which is not provable in the least sense. Microevolution is absolutely fact, but never, ever confuse it with macroevolution, which is what laymen usually mean by "evolution." Macroevolution, as far as I know, has not yielded scientific proof, nor does it make any testable claims. There is no control, so I fail to see where the the science is. What people might confuse with the field of evolution (in the popular sense) is likely genetics. Science lives and breathes on healthy debate, even of such things as gravitation (a continuing problem).
That particular split is not a universal scientifically accepted thing. Micro vs Macro is a mostly American construct. I went through 3 years of university genetics without it even being mentioned once (I'm in Canada). It's basically a redefinition/scarecrow fallacy inacted by critics of evolution when it evidence started to mount against them.
There is no ban on stem cell research. There is a moratorium on using Federal funds for the creation of new lines of embryonic stem cells.
There was no ban on research into the molecule of inheritance but all the useful research was government funded. So if we had a moratorium on research on which molecule was the heritable factor we probably would not have gotten the entire field of genetics and all of it's useful axillary benifits we currently have for it.
In such a debate, I suspect taking the offensive is not the right way to go: Demanding them to acknowledge weakness in their own theories and state what would be sufficient to falsify them is obviously going to put them on the defensive, and viewers would be more willing to accept defensive responses.
Instead, take the opposite approach: Ask them what evidence would convince them that evolution is valid - and, as a followup, you could also ask why they feel the current body of research fails to fulfil these criteria. If they dismiss the theory out of hand, it shows an element of close-mindedness. If they don't, you open the avenue for the discussion of what the actual evidence is.
You are a genius. If I had a large multi national media corporation I'd hire you to do PR.
Do you really care what the answer is or do you just want to know how best to ask a question to make the GOP candidates look bad? From the summary it sounds like the latter. Just curious...
If a political party are all homogenius in the way they think about a heavily supported scientific theory then perhaps there is something wrong with said party? If all dems believed the world was flat then indeed you shouldn't vote for such a regressive bunch. If an entire party consists of people who will say they do not believe in a well supported scientific theory then it's pretty much grounds to vote for another party. Personally I don't think it's a GOP thing but it's an American thing. The degree that people are mis-educated in science is appalling. Look at this thread, I spotted at least 6 people who don't understand even the basics of science.
Hell, I disagree with certain specifics of evolution, and I also know that unless a record is kept for 10's of thousands of years that those specifics will never be answered. A better question would have been, "Do you think the theory of evolution is entirely false?" as such a question would have much better defined ones position on the subject.(Note, I don't actually endorse any of the candidates mentioned above.)
We know where mars will be in 10 years. We lack 10,000 years of records but we are very acutely aware of the mechanics behind planetary motion. Does it mean we will never have a valid theory unless we get 10,000 years of data? Evolution works in a generational time span. For long lived and slow reproducing organisms it may take several generations to see genotype/phenotype shifts int he population but we know of and are very confident int he mechanisms behind it. As confident as we are of the mechanisms behind planetary motion.
And since the concept of random mutation cannot be falsified, I guess it doesn't belong in a science class according to you? After all, it's just the same belief as a belief in God, it's just the belief that the universe doesn't have a purpose. Can't be falsified EITHER way.
As to your last sentence, I think you tripped on your own double negative.
Actually the theory that DNA has random mutations can be falsified. If you have an experiment where have multi generations of organism with exactly the same genotype/phenotype without ever having one arise of a phenotype/genotype different then that which was already in the pool and if it occurred always and in every experiment then that would disprove random mutations as a theory.
note: Theory vs law. Laws are more terse and theories never graduate to laws. Laws are simple observed tautologies while theories are often more complex constructed models.
It seems to me that a great many American's don't believe that evolution occurred. Confronting a candidate on this issue is more likely to boost support among these people than it is to erode support among people who already know that the target candidate is a throw-back to the 14th century. This might do more to energize the religious right if they get a bee in the bonnet over a perceived attack on their beliefs.
The pro-evolution camp might win the debate, by lose the election.
There are far fewer "fundamentalists" then the various religious affiliated candidates would have you believe. The fundamentalists are a small but very vocal group who lobby far beyond their weight and pay scale. Why? because their so vocal. Of Christians Many sects are fine with evolution although they beleive it's ultimately God who did it regardless of the actual mechanism. You will never sway them from this. But the fundementalists are the mouth brethers who deny any evolution ever occurred and believe in a 6000-10000 year old earth.
Can we mod parent "-1 doesn't understand science". Please!
A theory is a well supported scientific idea. A "fact" is a term for data. Yo use data to derive hypothesis/theories. A scientific fact is a non scientific or even technical term for "I hate science and wish it would go away."
The biggest problem is science is that we don't teach it well enough to ensure people like the parent realize their mistake.
heres what you wrote about someone accusing the ships in Star Trek traveling like an airplane:
I definitely don't remember anything about stopping just by killing the engines (not in ST at least). However, at speeds which are a significant fraction of c, the friction from interstellar dust and hydrogen atoms is significant. Space isn't a pure vacuum you know (or do you?).
So either the bolded part is a non-sequitur having nothing to do about what he was talking about, or your implying that space dust had enough friction to significantly slow or stop a ship.
Why in the hell would wearing really good armor make you less likely to be hit?? Like its hard to hit a guy wearing full plate mail? If anything, wearing heavy armor should make you easier to hit. The armor should absorb damage, not make you less likely to be hit...
If you look back at medieval armor you'll find that good armor "deflected" blows while poor mans armor absorbed them. Although full plate was msotly for show and was obsoleted fairly quickly, it deflected most common strikes. Notice the odd angle on most armor. It might be for show but it's meant to make hitting it with a solid blow difficult. The more modern the armor the more angular and odd shaped it got.
heheh not as geeky as me! it's the exact odds c3po gives when Luke is lost on hoth in ESB. It seriously annoys me. It might make a few slacked jawed yokels thing "gee that karictur is sur smarted" but everybody whose don't any statistics just groans at the ignorance of the writer or director or improvising actor.
Site was interesting, but sometimes comes across as nitpicky about things that really shouldn't be criticized, like the whole visible lasers or flashing bullet impacts - he doesn't really ask himself if it would make the movie any better if the lasers weren't visible or you couldn't see the impacts. Hell, you'd think the fact they're using hand-held laser weapons would be the bigger problem, if you can accept that why not visible lasers.
Hand held laser are a very real possibility and can do fairly high damage to dark targets with portable energy supplies. They'd function much like the "flashlights" in niven's known space books. With all the resultant limitations as well.
1,2,4,7,9,11,14,15,16,19, and 21 are plausible if not common. 3 is irrelevant if your open minded and don't have a bitch for a wife/GF. Sex is an amazing pain killer.
China is not a Soviet bloc country. I never said anything about Soviets. China is China. It doesn't have a standardized system. It is a caste system with major cities getting a standardized curriculum and high school isn't even mandatory. You can't really compare a system like in the US where high school education is provided for and a system like China where the persons with the smarts and the means get high school education.
Please look up the word Caste. It is not a system is instituted in china. China has wealth disparity between the rural and urban areas but you'll find every single nation on earth has the same disparity to some degree. China has 1 super rich prosperous region in the south containing Hk, Guangdong, and it's neighbors. And various economically less fortunate but still not too far behind regions. The vast majority of production happens in Guangdong which is due mainly to it's close ties to Hong Kong and the Cantonese diaspora. Principally the availability of markets and capital made it so rich.
You also contradicted yourself in your post. Claiming 1- no standardized system. Then saying 2-major cities got standardized systems. Most graduates of Chinese schools at any given point will be 2-3 grade above the same age group in America in math and science. A non trivial percentage of the highest achieving students int he US system are either foreign nationals, immigrants, or children of immigrants. Ironically mostly east asian.
Half of China can't read. Pick a better example. China's success is because of the sheer number of people there, there are bound to be enough people who become talented scientists and engineers. Same with India.
I may be mistaken but 90.9 wasn't declared to be the new half yet. Did a I miss an addendum to the no child left behind policy? have they revised 90.9 to be half now? China is successful for various economic and social reasons. They are a fairly young pop., fairly educated and driven pop., and have had a classical history in emphasizing learning and science. Although in a less effective and formalized way as modern scientific theory. If not for scientific theory Europe (around 600 years ago) would have remained the "third world" backwater it was, while China and India would have continued to be the most powerful and advanced nations and Arabia and the Mediterranean would be a close third. Due entirely to some intellectual borrowing from those three regions and existing economic and social conditions Europe climbed out of the intellectual, social, and economic muck and rose to prominence.
Actually I wouldn't say it is "hard wired". That's what the first few years of life are about. Throw a ball at a 6 month old and see what happens.
It's more that we grow up in a world where gravity is constant, and we learn to predict future ball positions through observation , trial and error.
"Look, an object heads towards me. I predict it will arrive here.. no.. here... little bit more... here. gotcha."
Actually it's sort of a ad hoc hard wiring. Once set it difficult to rearrange. This happens at a certain age. Your brain is like a massive old school switch board with a operator that gets slower and lazier with age.
Forget the bad physics. What about the probabilities?!
What really rattles me is when a "nerd" character gives the odds on someone doing something. Unless it is a very simple case such as rolling dice or if that nerd is nearly omnicent there is no way to give a practical statistic on such actions. The odds Luke will survive out there is 3,720 to 1 my ass. "one in 3,720 of our soldiers have survived a night out there" would be better.
Since when did anyone "fly like an airplane" through space? We're talking about Star Trek here, not Scientology with its space-going Douglas jets.
I definitely don't remember anything about stopping just by killing the engines (not in ST at least). However, at speeds which are a significant fraction of c, the friction from interstellar dust and hydrogen atoms is significant. Space isn't a pure vacuum you know (or do you?).
Umm.. really read up on aerodynamic drag. Seriously, no matter what your speed the thin amount of material in interstellar space will not ever bring you to a full and complete stop. They have a implausible but self consistent reason for it (their engines are reationless and inertialess when going warp) but the interstellar dust is not what slows or stops them. That is a silly idea. Does air stop a car dead if it the engine stops working? Does a baseball get stopped instantly in the relatively thick atmosphere? would it if it were going a significant fraction of C? Did you actually take a single physics course in high school... actually even more fundamental Do you live in this reality?
Actually, given that quantum entanglement exists it's not completely violating the laws of physics. Read um... The Quantum Connection by Travis S Taylor. It gives a good example of what could be done communications wise assuming the properties of quantum entanglement could be directed.
From my understanding it gives you no information. Influence on one element of the entanglement decouples it from the system. IT's liek having two mystery boxes with a perpetually spinning top in both. At the factory where they are made, they are made in pairs and each emember of the pair is set to spin in opposite directions. when ever you look at the box, lo an dbehold they spin opposite to each other. But if you spin one the others way it won't automagically respin the other top. though IANAP.
Star trek is just several years worth of lazy writing. They use science as a deus ex machina more often then not and they don't really care about accuracy. Sounds in space, easy matter to energy conversions, rocks with the mass of styro foam etc..
The question isn't whether any random person off the street can instantly answer any question put to them. The question is whether most random people, given sufficient time and motivation, can learn enough about a subject to render an answer to most questions. And the answer to that is 'yes'.
That doesn't mean I'm asking for an Oracle that can "answer all questions about life, the universe, and everything." Sometimes the answer to a specific question is "there isn't enough information", or "the answer is too complex", or the answer might even be wrong -- intelligence isn't perfect. But the nature of intelligence is that it's capable of learning and expanding the knowledge base.
You greatly over estimate mankind. I have a family friend who given infinite time will never puzzle out any problem beyond tying his shoes. should I consider him non human? The problem with inventing things machine can't do is often people can't do ti either. Computers have a form of intelligence very alien to our own but it is an intelligence. learning is part of model of intelligence but the rate and capacity is heterogeneous in the population.Computer systems can learn as well but in a very alien fashion. IF we ever do a achieve any sort of AI it will be very alien. As it doesn't have the same frame of reference the rest of us has. Just as my friend has a very different frame of reference from me. But he is intelligent in a way and so are computers. Ohh and the answer that most will render given motivation and sufficient time to the majority of all questions humanity has solved will be "I don't know". Remember these are the same people who voted against their own national interest and voted for geedubya.
I should be able to do this: Machine, here is problem A. Given the set of facts of human knowledge, solve the problem, extending knowledge if necessary via experimentation.
That's what a human can do. When a machine can do it, I will call that intelligence.
Note that this does NOT require self-awareness, only intelligence.
Depending on the problem, chances are the majority of humanity couldn't do it either.
Problem A: The cause of WWI the was?
Data: Here is a dozen history books.
Most humans would tune out and say it was Hitler and Americans will add that they pulled Europe's bacon out of the fire single handedly. Both hilariously untrue.
A small subset of people can do what you propose for any problem that extends beyond common everyday tasks like tying shoes laces. Ask a layman non-college grad to find the solution to a calculus problem or have the same person work out the estimated average density of ants in a 4 hectare plot of land using string, sticks, and a note pad. You could even provide biology texts but most people would be out of his depth.
They _incorporate some socialist ideals_, but not the central one of collective or state ownership of all property and wealth, hence my phrase "Social democrats seek a society in which many of the the benefits of socialism are achieved without eliminating capitalism", i.e. wealth and property in private hands.
Guy, the implication of a state collective is communism the reason I rebutted the idea that socialism != communism in your post is thematically you have them confused. Socialism require no idea of organization. Instead it is a notion of wealth redistribution. You can have it democratic. You can have it despotic. You can have it in anarchy (although it would be difficult). The core principal is social wealth distribution and any state including the US with some form of wealth distributions technically "socialist". Commonly we draw the line at approximately universal health care as a matter of modern ideology. But technically the US is a socialist state starting when they had the first social programs. Socialism started out as and has come back to the core idea of wealth distribution. Along the way it's splintered into many parallel ideologies (Marixism, Maoism, Mixed Economies). The core idea being some for of wealth redistribution. Many include some ability for state intervention in pushing towards what is desired. Canada, Sweden, and Denmark all include some controls by the government to push the economy in desired directions using Tax money. They are a heavily bastard children of the original ideology but they are successful example of modern socialism. For Canada specifically the economic controls come in the form of currency control as well as taxes and the various government programs such as health care etc.. The idea of social control over the means of production is broad enough not preclude all private production only that social control is applied in some way. You have to admit taxes are a very social control. Give X% for the common good idea.
2) This was not implied in any way by your prior post, which contained the completely unambiguous statement: "Sweden, denmark, Canada etc.. are socialists. USSR, China and Cuba are Communist". No amount of subsequent manoeuvring on your part changes the fact that you said three countries with stock markets, private housing markers, and countless privately owned companies _are_ socialist, just as you also said that three countries with government of the many by the few _are_ communist.
If you have even the most basic understanding of set theory you can understand.
Socialist != Communist Communist subset Socialist Socialist = Canada, Sweden, Denmark Communist = USSR, PRC, Cuba
are statements that all can be true simultaneously in the same universe of discourse. The only collary is USSR, PRC, and CUBA are also socialist states. Socialism does not mean you cannot have stock markets, personal property, greed, and fairly open markets. It only means there exists some form of wealth distribution. You assume a centralized economy and a core part of socialism. it isn't. That idea is a core part of Marxism/communism. Socialism is all the frilly vote buying stuff like free childcare, free education, universal health care etc... I am not rebutting point you didn't make I'm rebutting points you did make and also points you implied. You either use the socialism I am referring to or use the definition as part of Marxism/communism. They are not the same despite being the same word. One is a movement that has influence much of western Europe and Canada, the US as well but to a more limited extent. The other is a word Marx borrowed to incorporate into his social utopian ideal we now know of as communism. So either you are unable to grasp what socialism is (redistribution of wealth, organizationally agnostic); you are only aware of and entertain the Marxist use of the word (central economy, precursor to "true" communism); or you are intentionally misunderstanding the entire concept to rile me up.
Slashdot Mirror
My main problem with saying that evolution is a scientific fact/law is that it is so often construed to imply an objective fact, which is not provable in the least sense. Microevolution is absolutely fact, but never, ever confuse it with macroevolution, which is what laymen usually mean by "evolution." Macroevolution, as far as I know, has not yielded scientific proof, nor does it make any testable claims. There is no control, so I fail to see where the the science is. What people might confuse with the field of evolution (in the popular sense) is likely genetics. Science lives and breathes on healthy debate, even of such things as gravitation (a continuing problem).
That particular split is not a universal scientifically accepted thing. Micro vs Macro is a mostly American construct. I went through 3 years of university genetics without it even being mentioned once (I'm in Canada). It's basically a redefinition/scarecrow fallacy inacted by critics of evolution when it evidence started to mount against them.
There is no ban on stem cell research. There is a moratorium on using Federal funds for the creation of new lines of embryonic stem cells.
There was no ban on research into the molecule of inheritance but all the useful research was government funded. So if we had a moratorium on research on which molecule was the heritable factor we probably would not have gotten the entire field of genetics and all of it's useful axillary benifits we currently have for it.
In such a debate, I suspect taking the offensive is not the right way to go: Demanding them to acknowledge weakness in their own theories and state what would be sufficient to falsify them is obviously going to put them on the defensive, and viewers would be more willing to accept defensive responses.
Instead, take the opposite approach: Ask them what evidence would convince them that evolution is valid - and, as a followup, you could also ask why they feel the current body of research fails to fulfil these criteria. If they dismiss the theory out of hand, it shows an element of close-mindedness. If they don't, you open the avenue for the discussion of what the actual evidence is.
You are a genius. If I had a large multi national media corporation I'd hire you to do PR.
Do you really care what the answer is or do you just want to know how best to ask a question to make the GOP candidates look bad? From the summary it sounds like the latter. Just curious ...
If a political party are all homogenius in the way they think about a heavily supported scientific theory then perhaps there is something wrong with said party? If all dems believed the world was flat then indeed you shouldn't vote for such a regressive bunch. If an entire party consists of people who will say they do not believe in a well supported scientific theory then it's pretty much grounds to vote for another party. Personally I don't think it's a GOP thing but it's an American thing. The degree that people are mis-educated in science is appalling. Look at this thread, I spotted at least 6 people who don't understand even the basics of science.
Hell, I disagree with certain specifics of evolution, and I also know that unless a record is kept for 10's of thousands of years that those specifics will never be answered. A better question would have been, "Do you think the theory of evolution is entirely false?" as such a question would have much better defined ones position on the subject.(Note, I don't actually endorse any of the candidates mentioned above.)
We know where mars will be in 10 years. We lack 10,000 years of records but we are very acutely aware of the mechanics behind planetary motion. Does it mean we will never have a valid theory unless we get 10,000 years of data? Evolution works in a generational time span. For long lived and slow reproducing organisms it may take several generations to see genotype/phenotype shifts int he population but we know of and are very confident int he mechanisms behind it. As confident as we are of the mechanisms behind planetary motion.
What parts exactly do you disagree with?
sorry to be so abrasive. My reply came out a lot more insulting then I had wished.
And since the concept of random mutation cannot be falsified, I guess it doesn't belong in a science class according to you? After all, it's just the same belief as a belief in God, it's just the belief that the universe doesn't have a purpose. Can't be falsified EITHER way.
As to your last sentence, I think you tripped on your own double negative.
Actually the theory that DNA has random mutations can be falsified. If you have an experiment where have multi generations of organism with exactly the same genotype/phenotype without ever having one arise of a phenotype/genotype different then that which was already in the pool and if it occurred always and in every experiment then that would disprove random mutations as a theory.
note: Theory vs law. Laws are more terse and theories never graduate to laws. Laws are simple observed tautologies while theories are often more complex constructed models.
It seems to me that a great many American's don't believe that evolution occurred. Confronting a candidate on this issue is more likely to boost support among these people than it is to erode support among people who already know that the target candidate is a throw-back to the 14th century. This might do more to energize the religious right if they get a bee in the bonnet over a perceived attack on their beliefs.
The pro-evolution camp might win the debate, by lose the election.
There are far fewer "fundamentalists" then the various religious affiliated candidates would have you believe. The fundamentalists are a small but very vocal group who lobby far beyond their weight and pay scale. Why? because their so vocal. Of Christians Many sects are fine with evolution although they beleive it's ultimately God who did it regardless of the actual mechanism. You will never sway them from this. But the fundementalists are the mouth brethers who deny any evolution ever occurred and believe in a 6000-10000 year old earth.
Can we mod parent "-1 doesn't understand science". Please!
A theory is a well supported scientific idea. A "fact" is a term for data. Yo use data to derive hypothesis/theories. A scientific fact is a non scientific or even technical term for "I hate science and wish it would go away."
The biggest problem is science is that we don't teach it well enough to ensure people like the parent realize their mistake.
heres what you wrote about someone accusing the ships in Star Trek traveling like an airplane:
I definitely don't remember anything about stopping just by killing the engines (not in ST at least). However, at speeds which are a significant fraction of c, the friction from interstellar dust and hydrogen atoms is significant. Space isn't a pure vacuum you know (or do you?).
So either the bolded part is a non-sequitur having nothing to do about what he was talking about, or your implying that space dust had enough friction to significantly slow or stop a ship.
Why in the hell would wearing really good armor make you less likely to be hit??
Like its hard to hit a guy wearing full plate mail?
If anything, wearing heavy armor should make you easier to hit.
The armor should absorb damage, not make you less likely to be hit...
If you look back at medieval armor you'll find that good armor "deflected" blows while poor mans armor absorbed them. Although full plate was msotly for show and was obsoleted fairly quickly, it deflected most common strikes. Notice the odd angle on most armor. It might be for show but it's meant to make hitting it with a solid blow difficult. The more modern the armor the more angular and odd shaped it got.
Check here for a brief over view.
heheh not as geeky as me! it's the exact odds c3po gives when Luke is lost on hoth in ESB. It seriously annoys me. It might make a few slacked jawed yokels thing "gee that karictur is sur smarted" but everybody whose don't any statistics just groans at the ignorance of the writer or director or improvising actor.
Site was interesting, but sometimes comes across as nitpicky about things that really shouldn't be criticized, like the whole visible lasers or flashing bullet impacts - he doesn't really ask himself if it would make the movie any better if the lasers weren't visible or you couldn't see the impacts. Hell, you'd think the fact they're using hand-held laser weapons would be the bigger problem, if you can accept that why not visible lasers.
Hand held laser are a very real possibility and can do fairly high damage to dark targets with portable energy supplies. They'd function much like the "flashlights" in niven's known space books. With all the resultant limitations as well.
1,2,4,7,9,11,14,15,16,19, and 21 are plausible if not common. 3 is irrelevant if your open minded and don't have a bitch for a wife/GF. Sex is an amazing pain killer.
China is not a Soviet bloc country. I never said anything about Soviets. China is China. It doesn't have a standardized system. It is a caste system with major cities getting a standardized curriculum and high school isn't even mandatory. You can't really compare a system like in the US where high school education is provided for and a system like China where the persons with the smarts and the means get high school education.
Please look up the word Caste. It is not a system is instituted in china. China has wealth disparity between the rural and urban areas but you'll find every single nation on earth has the same disparity to some degree. China has 1 super rich prosperous region in the south containing Hk, Guangdong, and it's neighbors. And various economically less fortunate but still not too far behind regions. The vast majority of production happens in Guangdong which is due mainly to it's close ties to Hong Kong and the Cantonese diaspora. Principally the availability of markets and capital made it so rich.
You also contradicted yourself in your post. Claiming 1- no standardized system. Then saying 2-major cities got standardized systems. Most graduates of Chinese schools at any given point will be 2-3 grade above the same age group in America in math and science. A non trivial percentage of the highest achieving students int he US system are either foreign nationals, immigrants, or children of immigrants. Ironically mostly east asian.
Half of China can't read. Pick a better example. China's success is because of the sheer number of people there, there are bound to be enough people who become talented scientists and engineers. Same with India.
I may be mistaken but 90.9 wasn't declared to be the new half yet. Did a I miss an addendum to the no child left behind policy? have they revised 90.9 to be half now? China is successful for various economic and social reasons. They are a fairly young pop., fairly educated and driven pop., and have had a classical history in emphasizing learning and science. Although in a less effective and formalized way as modern scientific theory. If not for scientific theory Europe (around 600 years ago) would have remained the "third world" backwater it was, while China and India would have continued to be the most powerful and advanced nations and Arabia and the Mediterranean would be a close third. Due entirely to some intellectual borrowing from those three regions and existing economic and social conditions Europe climbed out of the intellectual, social, and economic muck and rose to prominence.
Actually I wouldn't say it is "hard wired". That's what the first few years of life are about. Throw a ball at a 6 month old and see what happens.
It's more that we grow up in a world where gravity is constant, and we learn to predict future ball positions through observation , trial and error.
"Look, an object heads towards me. I predict it will arrive here.. no.. here... little bit more... here. gotcha."
Actually it's sort of a ad hoc hard wiring. Once set it difficult to rearrange. This happens at a certain age. Your brain is like a massive old school switch board with a operator that gets slower and lazier with age.
Forget the bad physics. What about the probabilities?!
What really rattles me is when a "nerd" character gives the odds on someone doing something. Unless it is a very simple case such as rolling dice or if that nerd is nearly omnicent there is no way to give a practical statistic on such actions. The odds Luke will survive out there is 3,720 to 1 my ass. "one in 3,720 of our soldiers have survived a night out there" would be better.
Since when did anyone "fly like an airplane" through space? We're talking about Star Trek here, not Scientology with its space-going Douglas jets.
I definitely don't remember anything about stopping just by killing the engines (not in ST at least). However, at speeds which are a significant fraction of c, the friction from interstellar dust and hydrogen atoms is significant. Space isn't a pure vacuum you know (or do you?).
Umm.. really read up on aerodynamic drag. Seriously, no matter what your speed the thin amount of material in interstellar space will not ever bring you to a full and complete stop. They have a implausible but self consistent reason for it (their engines are reationless and inertialess when going warp) but the interstellar dust is not what slows or stops them. That is a silly idea. Does air stop a car dead if it the engine stops working? Does a baseball get stopped instantly in the relatively thick atmosphere? would it if it were going a significant fraction of C? Did you actually take a single physics course in high school... actually even more fundamental Do you live in this reality?
Actually, given that quantum entanglement exists it's not completely violating the laws of physics. Read um... The Quantum Connection by Travis S Taylor. It gives a good example of what could be done communications wise assuming the properties of quantum entanglement could be directed.
From my understanding it gives you no information. Influence on one element of the entanglement decouples it from the system. IT's liek having two mystery boxes with a perpetually spinning top in both. At the factory where they are made, they are made in pairs and each emember of the pair is set to spin in opposite directions. when ever you look at the box, lo an dbehold they spin opposite to each other. But if you spin one the others way it won't automagically respin the other top. though IANAP.
Name anything in Star Trek that blatantly violates the principles of physics.
Inertial dampers?
Tachyon weapons?
Transporters?
Multiple personality "force fields"? (sometimes permeable, always tweak-able, Inconsistent usage)
Star trek is just several years worth of lazy writing. They use science as a deus ex machina more often then not and they don't really care about accuracy. Sounds in space, easy matter to energy conversions, rocks with the mass of styro foam etc..
The question isn't whether any random person off the street can instantly answer any question put to them. The question is whether most random people, given sufficient time and motivation, can learn enough about a subject to render an answer to most questions. And the answer to that is 'yes'.
That doesn't mean I'm asking for an Oracle that can "answer all questions about life, the universe, and everything." Sometimes the answer to a specific question is "there isn't enough information", or "the answer is too complex", or the answer might even be wrong -- intelligence isn't perfect. But the nature of intelligence is that it's capable of learning and expanding the knowledge base.
You greatly over estimate mankind. I have a family friend who given infinite time will never puzzle out any problem beyond tying his shoes. should I consider him non human? The problem with inventing things machine can't do is often people can't do ti either. Computers have a form of intelligence very alien to our own but it is an intelligence. learning is part of model of intelligence but the rate and capacity is heterogeneous in the population.Computer systems can learn as well but in a very alien fashion. IF we ever do a achieve any sort of AI it will be very alien. As it doesn't have the same frame of reference the rest of us has. Just as my friend has a very different frame of reference from me. But he is intelligent in a way and so are computers. Ohh and the answer that most will render given motivation and sufficient time to the majority of all questions humanity has solved will be "I don't know". Remember these are the same people who voted against their own national interest and voted for geedubya.
Definition of intelligence...
I should be able to do this: Machine, here is problem A. Given the set of facts of human knowledge, solve the problem, extending knowledge if necessary via experimentation.
That's what a human can do. When a machine can do it, I will call that intelligence.
Note that this does NOT require self-awareness, only intelligence.
Depending on the problem, chances are the majority of humanity couldn't do it either.
Problem A: The cause of WWI the was?
Data: Here is a dozen history books.
Most humans would tune out and say it was Hitler and Americans will add that they pulled Europe's bacon out of the fire single handedly. Both hilariously untrue.
A small subset of people can do what you propose for any problem that extends beyond common everyday tasks like tying shoes laces. Ask a layman non-college grad to find the solution to a calculus problem or have the same person work out the estimated average density of ants in a 4 hectare plot of land using string, sticks, and a note pad. You could even provide biology texts but most people would be out of his depth.
They _incorporate some socialist ideals_, but not the central one of collective or state ownership of all property and wealth, hence my phrase "Social democrats seek a society in which many of the the benefits of socialism are achieved without eliminating capitalism", i.e. wealth and property in private hands.
Guy, the implication of a state collective is communism the reason I rebutted the idea that socialism != communism in your post is thematically you have them confused. Socialism require no idea of organization. Instead it is a notion of wealth redistribution. You can have it democratic. You can have it despotic. You can have it in anarchy (although it would be difficult). The core principal is social wealth distribution and any state including the US with some form of wealth distributions technically "socialist". Commonly we draw the line at approximately universal health care as a matter of modern ideology. But technically the US is a socialist state starting when they had the first social programs. Socialism started out as and has come back to the core idea of wealth distribution. Along the way it's splintered into many parallel ideologies (Marixism, Maoism, Mixed Economies). The core idea being some for of wealth redistribution. Many include some ability for state intervention in pushing towards what is desired. Canada, Sweden, and Denmark all include some controls by the government to push the economy in desired directions using Tax money. They are a heavily bastard children of the original ideology but they are successful example of modern socialism. For Canada specifically the economic controls come in the form of currency control as well as taxes and the various government programs such as health care etc.. The idea of social control over the means of production is broad enough not preclude all private production only that social control is applied in some way. You have to admit taxes are a very social control. Give X% for the common good idea.
2) This was not implied in any way by your prior post, which contained the completely unambiguous statement: "Sweden, denmark, Canada etc.. are socialists. USSR, China and Cuba are Communist". No amount of subsequent manoeuvring on your part changes the fact that you said three countries with stock markets, private housing markers, and countless privately owned companies _are_ socialist, just as you also said that three countries with government of the many by the few _are_ communist.
If you have even the most basic understanding of set theory you can understand.
Socialist != Communist
Communist subset Socialist
Socialist = Canada, Sweden, Denmark
Communist = USSR, PRC, Cuba
are statements that all can be true simultaneously in the same universe of discourse. The only collary is USSR, PRC, and CUBA are also socialist states. Socialism does not mean you cannot have stock markets, personal property, greed, and fairly open markets. It only means there exists some form of wealth distribution. You assume a centralized economy and a core part of socialism. it isn't. That idea is a core part of Marxism/communism. Socialism is all the frilly vote buying stuff like free childcare, free education, universal health care etc... I am not rebutting point you didn't make I'm rebutting points you did make and also points you implied. You either use the socialism I am referring to or use the definition as part of Marxism/communism. They are not the same despite being the same word. One is a movement that has influence much of western Europe and Canada, the US as well but to a more limited extent. The other is a word Marx borrowed to incorporate into his social utopian ideal we now know of as communism. So either you are unable to grasp what socialism is (redistribution of wealth, organizationally agnostic); you are only aware of and entertain the Marxist use of the word (central economy, precursor to "true" communism); or you are intentionally misunderstanding the entire concept to rile me up.