A better comparison would be a software license and a car plate license.
If you want to use the used car example, try the actual software product, which actually does have a useful lifespan (for justification see accounting rules for deprecation of software).
>I hope you will never have to rely on a GPS then. A GPS unit calculates its own position by comparing timing signals sent to it by several satellites.
Thats a great example! Maybe this new fangled theorm you kids call "relativity" may be worth while looking into:)
> GR is rarely taught at science classes, or even to undergraduate physics majors.
I recall using E=mc2 in high school. Not the low-level, first-principles complex stuff but just applying the formula. Like how strong is a nuclear bomb and how much energy could you really get from a piece of wood vs. burning it.
>This is not about ID vs Evolution, this is about Math Class vs English Class!
Lets say that it this is about putting the correct subject in the correct classroom.
Is this what people really care about, considering all the problems with highschool these days? (Security, quality of teaching, student test scores, etc).
Is one part of one subject matter in one class being in the wrong "area" the biggest problem in education today? Would you feel so strongly or think that it is a big issue if a math teacher played a piano in the classroom a day each semester?
>When you build on someone else's work, you leave their caveats to them.
So would it be correct to introduce statements from the Bible into a scientific paper if someone some where wrote "The Bible may or may not be correct." a thousand years ago?
>Science works by ruling out mistaken ideas, not by proving some "right" idea.
Science works by Ockham's Razor, not by falsiblity. If science worked by falsiblity we would still be struggling with our 1 millionth version of Newton's Law (which would be about 250 pages of conditions and exceptions and footnotes, yet it would still survive any false proof by adding more conditions and exceptions and footnotes).
>Science is the domain of conditional statements, usually starting with a caveat like, "To the best of our knowledge...".
And then science continues on like the proposition is the truth. Now that is not wrong scientifically, but does happen. (Does it then becomes the "religion of science"?) Think about how much work has been done in physics that is based on theorms, yet I don't see a huge list of conditions before each paper.
If you rely, write and act like statement A is the truth, its ok just because you have given yourself an out by not writing "A is the truth." down somewhere?
"Scientists, therefore, are a great deal more interested in statements that can be tested (found to be false) than statements that can be proven."
No they are not. They are interested in finding how things are and generally why. They don't say "Theroem A cannot be proven, I won't even bother with it."
"What was our Universe like at a fraction of a second before it started" can never be proven or disproven but it doesn't mean that scientists are not investigating the question. (Ok, you could build a time-machine but then that raises even more issues.)
>Which of these theories are children in danger of hearing in their "science" class rooms?
Isn't that what the science class is for? Bringing up strange and interesting ideas and applying scientific methods to them?
I had a science teacher that did address UFOs and other silly questions like "why aren't there superheros?". That was an excellent learning experience.
Exactly when should we allow others to start hearing things you/I/someone else disagrees with?
>I have to form a worlview from the available evidence. >Evolution has evidence. >ID has not.
Einstien didn't work with scientific labs and big telescopes. He was really a theortical physicist. He proposed a theory that didn't have evidence for it until 8 years later. They are only finding direct evidence of some his work now. Yet his work was taken seriously, scientifically reviewed and is taught in science classes even though some of it has no direct evidence.
On the other hand, I'm with you. I think that Einstein's stuff is all wrong. And I don't really care because for the vast majority of my life, Newtonian physics will be good enough for me. Its easy to ignore things when we choose to.
>Anybody who attempts to position ID as scientific theory is a liar.
Exactly what is with the strong feelings of hatrid towards ID? How objective are people when there are such strong emotions?
There are lots of "wrong" scientific theories out there no matter how you define "wrong". Peak oil, pyramids, bigfoot, what makes the stock market move, the composition of the earth's core. Take your pick but I don't see the same level of emotions.
From what I can tell people hate ID because of ID's backers personalities, not because of the scientific theory. And the scary thing is that these are the same people who claim the ID backers are not being "objective".
From the article; "The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating."
"The sale of the analog spectrum is expected to raise at least $10 billion. Besides the $3 billion for converter boxes, the Senate bill proposes reserving $1 billion for public safety to buy new radio communications equipment and $250 million for a national alert system. Another $5 billion would be set aside for debt reduction."
Now can we get back to our regular dose of Google/iPod stories?
>Remember SARS? Yeah, it's kind of hard to trust the doomsayers after that paticular fiasco.
Are you saying that SARS had no impact on anyone? Do you know how much economic damage it did? SARS was a test case of what a minor outbreak is (~1000 deaths worldwide). They are conserivatvely estimating ~7 million deaths if avian flu can be transmitted from human to human.
>the reason is simply that experience has shown that, most solutions to fundamental problems in physics are simple and elegant. That's it.
No its not. In the most general scientific way of things, things are complex. The simple things have already been discovered.
The solution to Fermats theorm comes to mind. That is pretty complex, requiring modern math techiques.
In physics, complex is quantum mechanics and all that it implies (multi-universes, faster-than-light particles).
I think that "mother nature" would have just stuck with Newtonian Physics for very large and very small dimensions. Why does she have to make things so complex?
>Most good solutions make the discoverer slap themselves in the forehead and say, "of course! It's so simple! Why didn't I see that before?!".
The interesting solutions are, not the "good" ones. You know, the ones they can make a one hour Discovery documentary out of with pretty CGI graphics and scientists talking with very visual backgrounds.
If this is was true, then one academic criteria to evaluating a theory should be; "Does it make you slap your forehead?"
My question was on the term "best", not on "simple".
But you do raise another good point.
>Simple means requiring less made up stuff - like fairies and dark matter...
Yet one was widely accepted for years and was/is the focus of serious scientific investigation and resources and another one was "obviously wrong".
When "making stuff up" for dark matter, why didn't scientists stop and make it simplier, using your easy rules? Isn't this what stopped them to investigate "fairies"?
Slashdot Mirror
A 5000 developers will jump at the chance.
So who exactly are the smart ones?
>Teenagers are not "fucking morons"
They are morons.
As you grow older you change and you grow wiser and you learn from your past mistakes.
I hope that in 10 years from now I can look back and see what idiotic mistakes I made and learn from them.
If you don't think that you were a moron during your teenage years, well then you are just an older moron.
>there's absolutely NO REASON to avoid one-person outfits. If the maintainer bows out, at worst you can support yourself,
That, by itself, is a great reason to avoid one-person outfits.
"how do you manage your client's expectations?"
A good solid "NO!" with lots of eye contact.
What the hell does "stationary" mean in space?
It means that you can use it to write a nice letter to a friend.
A better comparison would be a software license and a car plate license.
If you want to use the used car example, try the actual software product, which actually does have a useful lifespan (for justification see accounting rules for deprecation of software).
>I hope you will never have to rely on a GPS then. A GPS unit calculates its own position by comparing timing signals sent to it by several satellites.
:)
Thats a great example! Maybe this new fangled theorm you kids call "relativity" may be worth while looking into
> GR is rarely taught at science classes, or even to undergraduate physics majors.
I recall using E=mc2 in high school. Not the low-level, first-principles complex stuff but just applying the formula. Like how strong is a nuclear bomb and how much energy could you really get from a piece of wood vs. burning it.
>This is not about ID vs Evolution, this is about Math Class vs English Class!
Lets say that it this is about putting the correct subject in the correct classroom.
Is this what people really care about, considering all the problems with highschool these days? (Security, quality of teaching, student test scores, etc).
Is one part of one subject matter in one class being in the wrong "area" the biggest problem in education today? Would you feel so strongly or think that it is a big issue if a math teacher played a piano in the classroom a day each semester?
>When you build on someone else's work, you leave their caveats to them.
So would it be correct to introduce statements from the Bible into a scientific paper if someone some where wrote "The Bible may or may not be correct." a thousand years ago?
>Science works by ruling out mistaken ideas, not by proving some "right" idea.
Science works by Ockham's Razor, not by falsiblity. If science worked by falsiblity we would still be struggling with our 1 millionth version of Newton's Law (which would be about 250 pages of conditions and exceptions and footnotes, yet it would still survive any false proof by adding more conditions and exceptions and footnotes).
>Science is the domain of conditional statements, usually starting with a caveat like, "To the best of our knowledge...".
And then science continues on like the proposition is the truth. Now that is not wrong scientifically, but does happen. (Does it then becomes the "religion of science"?) Think about how much work has been done in physics that is based on theorms, yet I don't see a huge list of conditions before each paper.
If you rely, write and act like statement A is the truth, its ok just because you have given yourself an out by not writing "A is the truth." down somewhere?
"Scientists, therefore, are a great deal more interested in statements that can be tested (found to be false) than statements that can be proven."
No they are not. They are interested in finding how things are and generally why. They don't say "Theroem A cannot be proven, I won't even bother with it."
"What was our Universe like at a fraction of a second before it started" can never be proven or disproven but it doesn't mean that scientists are not investigating the question. (Ok, you could build a time-machine but then that raises even more issues.)
>Which of these theories are children in danger of hearing in their "science" class rooms?
Isn't that what the science class is for? Bringing up strange and interesting ideas and applying scientific methods to them?
I had a science teacher that did address UFOs and other silly questions like "why aren't there superheros?". That was an excellent learning experience.
Exactly when should we allow others to start hearing things you/I/someone else disagrees with?
>I have to form a worlview from the available evidence.
>Evolution has evidence.
>ID has not.
Einstien didn't work with scientific labs and big telescopes. He was really a theortical physicist. He proposed a theory that didn't have evidence for it until 8 years later. They are only finding direct evidence of some his work now. Yet his work was taken seriously, scientifically reviewed and is taught in science classes even though some of it has no direct evidence.
On the other hand, I'm with you. I think that Einstein's stuff is all wrong. And I don't really care because for the vast majority of my life, Newtonian physics will be good enough for me. Its easy to ignore things when we choose to.
>Anybody who attempts to position ID as scientific theory is a liar.
Exactly what is with the strong feelings of hatrid towards ID? How objective are people when there are such strong emotions?
There are lots of "wrong" scientific theories out there no matter how you define "wrong". Peak oil, pyramids, bigfoot, what makes the stock market move, the composition of the earth's core. Take your pick but I don't see the same level of emotions.
From what I can tell people hate ID because of ID's backers personalities, not because of the scientific theory.
And the scary thing is that these are the same people who claim the ID backers are not being "objective".
>evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence.
That in itself is not does not make evolution the "truth".
Unless you want to pull out a "this published paper and this one and this one is right" argument.
Read the article. Spend $3B to get at least $7B. Fairly good deal.
From the article;
"The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating."
"The sale of the analog spectrum is expected to raise at least $10 billion. Besides the $3 billion for converter boxes, the Senate bill proposes reserving $1 billion for public safety to buy new radio communications equipment and $250 million for a national alert system. Another $5 billion would be set aside for debt reduction."
Now can we get back to our regular dose of Google/iPod stories?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-cytokine-storm .htms tory.html
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501050926/hi
You get the flu, your body then reacts so much that you basically kill off your own lung tissues. Really nasty stuff.
The 1918 flu killed alot of healthy people (18-40 year olds), not because their immune system was weak but because it was strong.
>Take a Lemsip, chicken soup(no pun intended), some antibiotics, get a lot of rest and you'll be fine.
m .htm
And your medical credientials are?
Do you even know that a cytokine storm is?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-cytokine-stor
>Remember SARS? Yeah, it's kind of hard to trust the doomsayers after that paticular fiasco.
Are you saying that SARS had no impact on anyone? Do you know how much economic damage it did? SARS was a test case of what a minor outbreak is (~1000 deaths worldwide). They are conserivatvely estimating ~7 million deaths if avian flu can be transmitted from human to human.
That is getting things backwards.
Between 2 theorms equally acceptable (testable and explains observations) we then choose the more simpler one.
What would you rather have, a simple and wrong solution or a complex and right solution?
>the reason is simply that experience has shown that, most solutions to fundamental problems in physics are simple and elegant. That's it.
No its not. In the most general scientific way of things, things are complex. The simple things have already been discovered.
The solution to Fermats theorm comes to mind. That is pretty complex, requiring modern math techiques.
In physics, complex is quantum mechanics and all that it implies (multi-universes, faster-than-light particles).
I think that "mother nature" would have just stuck with Newtonian Physics for very large and very small dimensions. Why does she have to make things so complex?
>Most good solutions make the discoverer slap themselves in the forehead and say, "of course! It's so simple! Why didn't I see that before?!".
The interesting solutions are, not the "good" ones. You know, the ones they can make a one hour Discovery documentary out of with pretty CGI graphics and scientists talking with very visual backgrounds.
If this is was true, then one academic criteria to evaluating a theory should be; "Does it make you slap your forehead?"
>That's just usually the way mother nature works.
No, its what you want science to look like.
My question was on the term "best", not on "simple".
But you do raise another good point.
>Simple means requiring less made up stuff - like fairies and dark matter...
Yet one was widely accepted for years and was/is the focus of serious scientific investigation and resources and another one was "obviously wrong".
When "making stuff up" for dark matter, why didn't scientists stop and make it simplier, using your easy rules? Isn't this what stopped them to investigate "fairies"?
Um.. define "the best"?
The "Truth"?
The "most elegent"?
The "one that majority of scientists can most willingly accept"?
The "one that my mind can most willingly accept"?
>What does it matter how your purchase comapres to anyone else if you would have been happy with the spec 'A' model in the first place?
Suppose you bought a mac and it was the "lesser" spec. Would you;
1. Accept the "lesser" spec knowing that its "lesser" or,
2. Return it and try your luck again?
>you don't *need* a paren-matching editor with lisp.
Apparently, you also believe that you don't *need* captialization.
I'm not sure how you go from
Keep a large group of very smart people employeed in the US.
to
The shuttle becomes obsolete.
Why just not use that pool of very smart people to upgrade/improve the shuttle? Are they just sitting around with nothing to do?