How can parents take responsibility if the kids really are getting sick at school, other than forcing the school to take action?
It's pretty unlikely that it's due to Wifi, but other people have given other suggestions, such as a mold problem, lack of oxygen due to bad circulation, and so on. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that it's an environmental issue.
> But empiricism relies on inductive and abductive reasoning, then jumps tracks and assumes the logic was deduction for any future experiments, so it shows a potentially logically imperfect window of human knowledge
Please give me a specific example in science where you feel that this is done.
> soon they forget the fact that Occam's Razor is abduction
Uh, no, they don't. Go and ask any physicist whether science has proven anything. They'll say no. Please give me any evidence to the contrary.
> Keeping those words in the statement is very important to someone else's understanding of the limits of the scientist's knowledge, and the possible errors in knowledge acquisition.
Then everything will become as wordy a philosophy paper without adding anything. There is absolutely no point for every scientific paper to start off with "Assuming that I can trust my eyes, and assuming that I can trust my brain.. " and so on.
Like: > whether or not there exists some objective measure of morality.
How can that possible be something to discuss or even research? You can never prove it, nor can you experimentally test for it. There is no way at all to get everyone to agree on an answer, because it's subjective. You can either state that you are a moral relativist or state that you are not. There's nothing more to it, afaics.
Likewise:
> The problem that the scientific method faces is that it centres around the logical move that we call inductive reasoning
This isn't even correct. No scientist claims that because, for example, the Sun has always risen before, therefore the Sun will rise tomorrow. No scientist ever claims that a theory has been proven because so far all evidence has supported it.
_Everything_ in science is about models, and how accurate we think the model is. Out of necessity scientists often use verbal abbreviations, like "The sun rose this morning" as an abbreviation for "I think I saw the Sun rise this morning, and I have no evidence that my senses are wrong, therefore from occums razor I will assume that the sun did rise this morning". But that's just to avoid being needlessly wordy - it's not a problem with science or anything.
Easy - by ejecting its insides. Simply through lumps of it out the back in the opposite direction that you want to go in. Hopefully its contents will include something that you can use as fuel to propel the lumps at high speed.
> Strictly there is no way to shield down to human-tolerable levels.
Lots of shielding?
The coolest idea that I've seen is to snag a comet as it goes by, and drill our way to the center of that. Then you have several km of sheilding:) Wouldn't that be sufficient?
> One thing that bugs me with all this study non-sense and the counter arguments is that they always have an extremely narrow field of view. It is either "they cause harm" or "they don't influence us at all", both are likely complete non-sense (even when done for humorous purpose as here).
The thing that bugs me is people criticizing studies without even bothering to read them. How is the following abstract of the study polarized in the manner that you've said? :
"Numerous studies have shown that exposure to media violence increases aggression, though the mechanisms of this effect have remained elusive. One theory posits that repeated exposure to media violence desensitizes viewers to real world violence, increasing aggression by blunting aversive reactions to violence and removing normal inhibitions against aggression. Theoretically, violence desensitization should be reflected in the amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP), which has been associated with activation of the aversive motivational system. In the current study, violent images elicited reduced P300 amplitudes among violent, as compared to nonviolent video game players. Additionally, this reduced brain response predicted increased aggressive behavior in a later task. Moreover, these effects held after controlling for individual differences in trait aggressiveness. These data are the first to link media violence exposure and aggressive behavior to brain processes hypothetically associated with desensitization."
> then once you're already dismissed to keep the passwords and configurations away from your former boss while he is explicitly telling you to give it up on the phone
Actually, yes, the contract does say that. The boss was not an authorized official for the passwords. If he had given up the passwords then he would have been in breach of his contract and could have been sued for that.
No, his contract said clearly that his superiors could not demand the passwords like that. There were clear protocols for transferring the passwords that the state refused to follow.
If you call a product version number "4.0" then people expect a certain level of quality. And people will demand that their distro carries it.
I'm a KDE developer, and IMHO we should have simply called it "KDE 4 BETA 1". And 'released' that. That would have given a platform for app developers to target, while not putting pressure on distros to provide it.
If you hear screams coming from the neighbours house, run up and see one person killing the other person, then record it, it seems crazy that that person could then sue you for that.
> This is trivial to show as wrong: Start with a basic cartoon mousetrap. A box with a piece of cheese in it, and a stick on the cheese holding the box up. Flaws? The mouse can shift the box and perhaps escape.
Someone could just argue that of course the mouse could escape, thus this would fail here.
I know your post is long enough already, but I think you need to say something like "This isn't a very good mousetrap, but it would at least catch elderly or ill mouse, or mice at night time only, etc ".
> Dawkins himself admits that there are enough problems with trying to explain how life started here on Earth that he believes life may have been "seeded" here.
I think this is a problem with communication. When a scientist talks, they usually mean every word that they say. But when a non-scientist then listens, they read between the lines, generalise and infer meaning that think was implied, and so on. The result is a lost in communication.
_Every_ scientist should say that life may have been seeded here. It is theoretically possible, thus it may have happened. That doesn't mean it's the most likely scenario.
It has happened to me to go into a Japanese garden in the middle of nowhere, go to the rackety old shed, and find inside modern heated toilet with spray..
Slashdot Mirror
How can parents take responsibility if the kids really are getting sick at school, other than forcing the school to take action?
It's pretty unlikely that it's due to Wifi, but other people have given other suggestions, such as a mold problem, lack of oxygen due to bad circulation, and so on. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that it's an environmental issue.
I guess you're being sarcastic, but some people do want to use network-transparent audio systems, for example.
If there is a problem but someone else solves it, who gets the prize?
> But empiricism relies on inductive and abductive reasoning, then jumps tracks and assumes the logic was deduction for any future experiments, so it shows a potentially logically imperfect window of human knowledge
Please give me a specific example in science where you feel that this is done.
> soon they forget the fact that Occam's Razor is abduction
Uh, no, they don't. Go and ask any physicist whether science has proven anything. They'll say no. Please give me any evidence to the contrary.
> Keeping those words in the statement is very important to someone else's understanding of the limits of the scientist's knowledge, and the possible errors in knowledge acquisition.
Then everything will become as wordy a philosophy paper without adding anything. There is absolutely no point for every scientific paper to start off with "Assuming that I can trust my eyes, and assuming that I can trust my brain.. " and so on.
LOL - I just looked through your post history. All of your comments are several pages long.. :)
I've never understood philosophy.
Like:
> whether or not there exists some objective measure of morality.
How can that possible be something to discuss or even research? You can never prove it, nor can you experimentally test for it. There is no way at all to get everyone to agree on an answer, because it's subjective. You can either state that you are a moral relativist or state that you are not. There's nothing more to it, afaics.
Likewise:
> The problem that the scientific method faces is that it centres around the logical move that we call inductive reasoning
This isn't even correct. No scientist claims that because, for example, the Sun has always risen before, therefore the Sun will rise tomorrow. No scientist ever claims that a theory has been proven because so far all evidence has supported it.
_Everything_ in science is about models, and how accurate we think the model is. Out of necessity scientists often use verbal abbreviations, like "The sun rose this morning" as an abbreviation for "I think I saw the Sun rise this morning, and I have no evidence that my senses are wrong, therefore from occums razor I will assume that the sun did rise this morning".
But that's just to avoid being needlessly wordy - it's not a problem with science or anything.
Easy - by ejecting its insides. Simply through lumps of it out the back in the opposite direction that you want to go in. Hopefully its contents will include something that you can use as fuel to propel the lumps at high speed.
> Strictly there is no way to shield down to human-tolerable levels.
Lots of shielding?
The coolest idea that I've seen is to snag a comet as it goes by, and drill our way to the center of that. Then you have several km of sheilding :) Wouldn't that be sufficient?
The joke continues:
Noah called a meeting for all the animals. Which one didn't come?
- The elephant - he was in the fridge.
How do you cross a crocodile infested river?
- Wait until they are at the Noah's meeting.
Regarding the unintuitive bit..
Has there ever been a successful UI with 3 columns of information? That layout never seems to work very well.
So, the BBC display the image that is illegal to show?
> One thing that bugs me with all this study non-sense and the counter arguments is that they always have an extremely narrow field of view. It is either "they cause harm" or "they don't influence us at all", both are likely complete non-sense (even when done for humorous purpose as here).
The thing that bugs me is people criticizing studies without even bothering to read them.
How is the following abstract of the study polarized in the manner that you've said? :
"Numerous studies have shown that exposure to media violence increases aggression, though the mechanisms of this effect have remained elusive. One theory posits that repeated exposure to media violence desensitizes viewers to real world violence, increasing aggression by blunting aversive reactions to violence and removing normal inhibitions against aggression. Theoretically, violence desensitization should be reflected in the amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP), which has been associated with activation of the aversive motivational system. In the current study, violent images elicited reduced P300 amplitudes among violent, as compared to nonviolent video game players. Additionally, this reduced brain response predicted increased aggressive behavior in a later task. Moreover, these effects held after controlling for individual differences in trait aggressiveness. These data are the first to link media violence exposure and aggressive behavior to brain processes hypothetically associated with desensitization."
So what, the council made up protocols that should just be ignored?
You're an ass for being so free in violating your contract just because someone said so.
> then once you're already dismissed to keep the passwords and configurations away from your former boss while he is explicitly telling you to give it up on the phone
Actually, yes, the contract does say that. The boss was not an authorized official for the passwords. If he had given up the passwords then he would have been in breach of his contract and could have been sued for that.
Well we know how it works out - they lock you away for doing what your contract tells you to.
Doesn't make it right.
No, his contract said clearly that his superiors could not demand the passwords like that. There were clear protocols for transferring the passwords that the state refused to follow.
But his /contract/ said that he was not allowed to turn over the passwords without the proper protocols. Which were not followed.
If you call a product version number "4.0" then people expect a certain level of quality. And people will demand that their distro carries it.
I'm a KDE developer, and IMHO we should have simply called it "KDE 4 BETA 1". And 'released' that. That would have given a platform for app developers to target, while not putting pressure on distros to provide it.
You know, even if that was true, it would still be worth supporting it in order to prevent Direct3D being without competition.
Even if you're a hardcore Direct3D-only user, you still benefit from the competition between them.
And what if you were trespassing to see it?
If you hear screams coming from the neighbours house, run up and see one person killing the other person, then record it, it seems crazy that that person could then sue you for that.
I don't understand why you think physicists wouldn't do the same things as every other geek, although I'm somewhat flattered tbh :-D
> This is trivial to show as wrong: Start with a basic cartoon mousetrap. A box with a piece of cheese in it, and a stick on the cheese holding the box up. Flaws? The mouse can shift the box and perhaps escape.
Someone could just argue that of course the mouse could escape, thus this would fail here.
I know your post is long enough already, but I think you need to say something like "This isn't a very good mousetrap, but it would at least catch elderly or ill mouse, or mice at night time only, etc ".
Have you ever seen a snowflake?
The odds of the water atoms just happening to clump together in that exact pattern are like winning the lottery every day of your life.
Therefore snowflakes were created directly by a snowflake God.
> Dawkins himself admits that there are enough problems with trying to explain how life started here on Earth that he believes life may have been "seeded" here.
I think this is a problem with communication. When a scientist talks, they usually mean every word that they say. But when a non-scientist then listens, they read between the lines, generalise and infer meaning that think was implied, and so on. The result is a lost in communication.
_Every_ scientist should say that life may have been seeded here. It is theoretically possible, thus it may have happened. That doesn't mean it's the most likely scenario.
I've been surprised.
It has happened to me to go into a Japanese garden in the middle of nowhere, go to the rackety old shed, and find inside modern heated toilet with spray..