What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?
As many others have already pointed out, with great wealth comes great power, which is invariably abused. Perhaps the obscenely rich don't intend to hurt anybody and destroy the environment, but they don't see the consequences of their actions and they don't care. People around the world live in extreme poverty as a consequence; we in the West are isolated from the reality of this, but there is a clear line from wealthy people and corporations seeking more wealth, through local corruption in 3rd world countries to extreme poverty, so calling it petty jealousy when people object to this state of affairs is at best, simply uninformed.
What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content.
The average is all that matters? So, if you live in a room that is 50 degrees centigrade half the day and 0 the other half, you will be confortable in shorts and a t-shirt, because on average the temperature is 25 degrees?
Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.
Isn't 'caring if someone has more than you' what drives capitalism? Ambition, in other words - the constant drive to do better, have more, acquire luxuries; why else would anyone work hard to make more money rather than just hang around in an armchair, beer in hand? What you are saying is nothing more than the shallow excuses for inequality, oppression and slavery, as they have been used throughout the ages. It's the sort of nonsense that goes along with saying "we're better of being poor".
I love the modern idea that works of fiction, specifically written to advance a particular point of view, are somehow indicative of how reality works. It's a movie, it's entertainment.
It isn't a modern idea - just take the Bible and other sacred and above all ancient works of fiction, specifically written to advance a particular point of view. And people actually believed the world was run that way. What is modern is the notion that something like literature or theatre is exclusively meant for entertainment, and even today this is rarely true. Even "mere entertainment" represents a way to collectively reflect on aspects of reality; when people watch the never ending drama and exaggerated posturing and crises in the average soap opera, they know that it isn't realistic - but that is part of the point really: it is an abstraction of things a lot of people know and have an opinion about, and it gives them a way to externalise problems. It may be shallow and stupid, but it isn't detached from people's reality.
I'm not disputing the science of this, but articles like this one are really just pushing the cult of the "Quantum Mystery". QM is difficult to understand intuitively, not because it is a deep mystery, but because it involves a lot of very hard mathematics - functional analysis, Hilbert- and Banach spaces, Lie theory and so on, not to mention measure theory and Lebesgue integrals; and that is before you even attempt to involve relativity in any form. Unfortunately this has led to the rise of a sort of Quantum Priethood, that preach a sort of nonsense quasi religion to people who like to think they get it. It is a real shame, because it taints QM with a whiff of sillyness that probably puts a number of intelligent, young students off, who would have loved the challenge of learning the maths, but are too realistic to want to play at mysteries.
That doesn't sound like a Chinese name at all - even after it has been through the American Language Foreign Name Mangler. To me it sounds more like a Hmong name. Firstly, in Hanyu Pinyin transcription, the letter 'x' is only used before 'i' or 'u', the latter pronounced as a German 'u umlaut'; and 'x' isn't used in any of the other standard transcriptions of Mandarin.
Apart from that - why assume that just because somebody has a name that sounds unfamiliar to you, they must somehow be less than yourself, morally or otherwise?
If it feels right for you, then no problem. But whether you wear spandex or normal clothes, you will of course change when you to work and have a shower. As for fancy bottles and electrolytes - nah. There has been enough research showing that all these special sports products add very little benefit over cheap, everyday things. The body has a very efficient system for retaining the necessary electrolytes, so what you are actually feeling when you hit the wall is more likely to be low blood sugar, which makes you feel feeble, sweaty and aching all over. Water is good enough for most situations, and a couple of bananas for the sugar. Or if you are really keen, a low-alcohol beer, which contains a number of beneficial things and almost tastes OK.
I don't like carbon fibre frames - maybe I've only ever used poor quality ones, but they feel like they become soft and wobbly after a while, which is my main reason for going back to my old Pashley built according to the best practices for Victorian Cast Iron Construction. It's a bit like riding the Forth Bridge, but I like it; it doesn't wobble.
Okay, I get it, you like pain. Because that is the only reason why one would not use suitable clothing, lighter bicycles or clipless pedals.
No, but I don't mind making an effort:-)
Suitable clothing to me is things like dressing up warm enough in the winter and so on; spandex doesn't seem to fit into the picture. As for lighter bicycles, how much of a real difference does it make, unless you are trying to shave off the last millisecond? Other factors are going to make a much bigger difference to most people, like the wind, the gradient etc. When your body weight is something between 60 - 100 kg, and you carry another 5 - 20 kg as luggage, it isn't really going to matter a lot what your bike weighs, unless you are trying to set a record (or you are pedaling a tank). I'm not against technology, but I won't pay for it unless it gives a real advantage on my journey. Simple is often better because there is less to go wrong.
Well, I'm not convinced. Maybe these things make sense for somebody who is into competitive cycling, but most of us aren't, I think - most people simply use a bike as a practical means of transport, which is perfectly sensible; it is a lot healthier, for one thing, and you get to breeze through rush hour. I used to cycle every day to work most of my life, mostly more than 20 km each day, but now the journey is too long, and it would take several hours each way. I have in the past done 100 - 150 km in a day on a "proper bicycle" (ie. the kind that is as heavy as a tank) dragging a trailer, dressed in just whatever counted as normal clothes at the time.
I strongly suspect that for most, dressing up in hi-viz spandex and riding an ultra-light weight bike with locking pedals and what have you is simply a combination of fashion and wishful thinking. I don't want to discourage people from exercising, but wearing brightly coloured clothes that look like they were painted on does tend to highlight the actual shape of your body, and quite often the effect is rather comical.
I can't quite decide whether these comments are serious or some kind of sophisticated sarcasm. Actually, knowing Americans, you are probably serious, but it strikes me as comical in a bizarre kind of way, the amount of passion this invokes and the length people will apparently go to in order to thwart the government, even over the smallest of things.
So, the people that get up in arms over a $15 tax are those that are willing to spend >$200 on a bicycle? If they are anything like what I see - and laugh at - in UK, they are also the ones that pay dearly, so they can look silly in brightly coloured spandex clothing, who buy expensive designer water bottles and other fashion accessories as well as "performance enhancing" energy drinks and -powders. These people feel sorely hurt over having to pay a one-off tax amounting to $15?
... people would queue up to spend $5 to make sure the government didn't get any income.
On the other hand, the same people see nothing wrong in paying far over the odds for accessories that have cost very little to manufacture - probably in China or India - thus feeding both the big businesses that seem to pull the string of government behind the scenes, and the governments of foreign powers. As I see it, this is little more than dumb spite.
You're assuming this connection hasn't been studied before. Its been studied for decades and there are dozens of papers, the OP is correct.
No, I'm referring to the fact that scientific research in the vast majority of cases studies something that has already been studied before. Often the reason is to build up statistical reliability, but it always originates from the fundamental truth, that experiments do not prove a theory; you can falsify, but never prove. Also, although the header says 'Long working days can cause heart problems", the actual theory they refer to, will be probing one or more angles in more detail - like, is it because people sit down all day? Is it because of the stress? The exposure to poor, indoor climate? And so on. As another example, take the theory that masses attract each other according to a certain formula first proposed by Isaac Newton; there are still experiments being carried to this day to confirm this, and they are not all demonstrations to students. Very often the researchers are trying to measure the gravitational constant more precisely, or they are trying to do it with a new technique. I mean, how many times has this experiment been carried out already in the last 300 years? But it is still relevant; science is never finished, only religion claims to give final answers.
I should start putting actual sugar in my coffee again?
Nope - learn to enjoy black coffee. Or water. Believe me, there is no limit to what a person can actually learn to enjoy the taste of; black coffee is a very minor challenge.
This is a known fact, has been known, has been studied, and is not only common knowledge but also common sense. Another waste of time and money from the No Shit Sherlock Institute of Bloody Obvious Conclusions.
And this is yet another stupid comment from somebody who hasn't a clue about how real science works. Following your lead, we would still have advance no further than the invention of the steam engine and the incandescent lightbulb, because most of modern science has been painstakingly discovered by scientists doing research that people like you would have found utterly useless. You wouldn't have computers, since the necessary discoveries in quantum mechanics wouldn't have been made; hell, you wouldn't even have electricity, since people like Galvani, Volta and Maxwell would have been cosidered idle wastrels and be told to get a real job. And so on. If you want science to progress and bring you useful technologies in the future, you have to put in the investments now in what looks like idle waste of time and money: IOW, fundamental research.
So, basically, you are saying that you are not even willing to contemplate the possibility of entering into a dialog and try to see if a compromise is possible? I am sure something is coming, and I don't think it is a good idea to simply leave it to governments and big business as usual.
I agree that backdoors are stupid - they will be found and a way to exploit them constructed. As for outlawing email encryption - you misunderstood what I said. I'm not talking about outlawing encryption on specific types of communication, but outlawing it on all but a number of well defined types of communication, which is much more doable. I imagine it would be possible to construct a protocol for allowed, encrypted traffic, which it would be possible to identify as legitimate - perhaps something like a public key attached to the unencrypted part of the packet? Something that would be very difficult to fake, but easy to check. And then filter out anything that looks encrypted and doesn't have such a key.
As for what kinds of communications should be allowed to encrypt - if we don't make our voices heard in a sensible manner, then our views will simply be discarded, and it will be decided mostly by big business and a little bit by government.
I do understand the issues, and in general I'd agree with you, but I don't agree with the alarmists that wnat to tell us that it is impossible to find a sensible, workable and above all fair solution. I don't know what form that would take, and it is quite possible that it will have to allow secure encryption, for many practical reasons. I think all parties will have to think outside the box and be willing to accept compromises. But to take encryption as an example - is it really the case that we either allow encryption without restriction, or otherwise have to give up on it altogether? Now, I can at least imagine that it would be possible to find a way to allow encryption on some types of data communication - eg. financial transactions - while disallowing it on, say, emails (not that I am advocating this in particular, it is just an example), and to do it in such a way that we can distinguish between legitimate, encrypted traffic and illegitimately encrypted traffic - without having to decrypt it. Is this challenge beyond the abilities of our civilisation?
So, a politician uses a glib answer to shut up an annoying reporter - is that really news? And he is right, to some degree: in a nation ruled by law, it is of course the law of the land that applies; mathematics may or may not have informed the legislation, but nobody is going to argue in court that the "Laws of Mathematics" overrule the laws of the country, so let's not go overboard.
A lot of legislation consists of guiding principles or declarations of intent; one might even say that the introduction of new laws is a part of the ongoing debate about how to adjust to the ever changing reality of society. The big internet companies have been extremely reluctant to engage with governments around the world in adressing the issues of terrorism, organised crime and other harmful activities that large, social media enable; the media companies always come up with these excuses, like "it is impossible" (meaning, it might hurt our profits), but even govermments employ people who have expert insight and are able to think. I don't think they are demanding the impossible - they are forcing the media companies to come to the table and make serious efforts to solve the problems in a realistic way, which they are quite capable of.
When I see that one of my posts has been downgraded like this one, with no follow-up comments, it seems clear to me that I have hit a nerve with some individual, who is unable to explain why he/she disagrees with my comments. I know some will try to claim that I'm just suffering from hurt pride, but not really - if anything, it shows that my comments provoked a response, and seeing that the 'score' is now "1, Troll", it means that there must have been at least 1 other person who felt I should be bumped up. However, I'd much rather see myself challenged by intelligent arguments; the absence of it is what worries me, since what any nation needs, especially at this time, is intelligent people, who care enough about what goes on to contribute to the debate.
Anyone know why they got rejected in the first place?
No, but I think it is possible to make a reasonable guess: When a populist leader has been making these kinds of radical statements - in Trump's case promising to ban all Muslims from entering the US - then there will be a large number of his followers who are more than willing to implement his words, even if the actual travel ban doesn't cover it. The fact of the matter is that nobody has a right to enter any country - it is up to the discretion of the staff at the embassies, the border agents etc., and they know that in most cases, ordinary people won't challenge a decision they've made. In my experience, the American visa staff are in general extremely arrogant - I remember helping my Chinese wife apply for visa to the US; they were more than willing to take the money, but then they dragged the feet for 6 months (by which time it was no longer relevant), and in the meantime, we got treated like suspects for daring to ask how things were advancing. I think we paid something like £300 for even applying, and would probably have had to go to court in order to make a complaint that wouldn't simply have been ignored. In such a setting, it isn't hard to imagine how and why these girls were denied visas.
I had to look up what Prime Day is - I thought it might be something like Pi Day, which would have been cool, in a way. Somewhere along the same off-topic, tangent, I'd like to suggest 2nd of August (or 8th of February, depending on whether you're American) as Perfect Day, since 28 is a perfect number. Sorry, slow moving day at work.
But inconvenient, in many cases. I got fed up with carrying a pocketfull of heavy change around and always ending up with a load of unshiftable, petty cash. Contactless cards are the ideal way to pay for small purchases.
As for being robbed - I haven't been robbed as such, but somebody once tried to. I have to say, if you are going to mug somebody, you shouldn't leave yourself so open to attack; a knife doesn't protect you from a well aimed kick to the groin, among other things. And if you threaten somebody with a knife, your opponent can legitimately kill you in self-defence.
...vaccinating in an underdeveloped immune system will always produce better long term results than vaccinating in a developed immune system.
Is that universally true, though? I don't remember the specifics, but not long ago I heard about a booster vaccine to BCG (Bacillus Calmetteâ"Guerin, for TB) that failed its efficacy trials because it didn't work in children, although it does work for adults.
If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?
It is a valid question, but I think that problem is a minor one and we have already solved it for passenger airplanes that fly at altitudes where humans can't breathe. The more serious risk in this system stems from the need to maintain a vacuum at all times - if there were a catastrophic failure of vacuum when the train travels at a very high speed, then it would be like slamming into a wall.
This must be one of those new definitions of "here now"
In the world of quantum mechanics, this makes perfect sense; but on the downside, as soon as you observe it, the wavefunction collapses and the train ends up at a random place and time, which is why we ask our customers to keep their eyes closed while travelling.
What competent programmer converts the abstraction of code to ENGLISH to grok it?
Exactly, and that goes for anybody who is even somewhat fluent in any specialist jargon. I doubt a mathematician generally thinks things like "If uppercase M is a module over fracture-uppercase R, a non-abelian, finite ring,...."; you only use that when you have to communicate your thoughts in a lecture or when writing the LaTeX document for an article. You would tend to think about these things in terms of their "cloud of properties" ("intuitively", in a sense, but more precise), without putting labels (like M or R, or x) on them - so "module", "ring" etc, and then you think in terms of properties and how they interact.
The writing of code is only the last step in the process of developing software - you have thought through the methods and how they are going to interact, when you come to writing them down, more likely than not, you already have a set of habits that more or less dictate how you write things down; like always using i, j, k, l,... for integer counters, r, q, s,... for floats and perhaps a handful for variables named foo, bar, yin, yang, down and up; I have a habit of using "up" for exceptions - childish, I know, but it appeals to me that I get to write "throw up" and "catch up".
Earth will survive. If we are dumb enough to destroy everything, then maybe a more intelligent lifeform will thrive. Or if we do not get entirely extinct, Darwinism will be the rule once again. Only the best will survive. Only those who can adapt.
True - well, up to a point. I think it is a misunderstanding to think that "Darwinism" (ie. evolution by natural selection) doesn't rule human evolution just because we are better at controlling diseases etc. Humans and their civilisation are part of nature, just like ants and termites with their complex societies are. Natural selection doesn't care by which means we survive - we have found ways that include technology, that's all; we are still under natural selection. And "the fittest" are not necessarily "the best" in any sense, it is only a label we put on the group that survives a selection event; it could in each case be down to dumb luck, but of course, if you are consistently lucky, then you probably have some trait that makes you better able to survive the sort of crises that the current environment throws at you - thus you may talk about being "fit" for survival.
Life will probably survive - the question is more how much will be lost this time? In particular, how much of the larger biota will disappear - keeping in mind that humans very much belong to the larger end of the fauna? And if we do survive, but most of the animals bigger than, say, rats go extinct, will we evolve to fill the niches left free: human birds, whales,..., (like in Ringworld, by Larry Niven)? Sorry, that took us well into science fiction, but you get the idea.
Why all the BeauHD hate around here? I watched one of his videos on YouTube and he seems like a nice enough guy. You trolls should just lay off and get a life.
I agree, there is no need to spew poison. That said, though, I find BeauHD deeply annoying - he seems to mainly post references to superficial pop-science with big, glossy pictures that stretch all across the screen and a gawping, "wow, cool" style of wording, and presenting old knowledge as some fantastic, new discovery. He probably hasn't realised that there are many non-sales people on slashdot, or perhaps he just doesn't care.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?
As many others have already pointed out, with great wealth comes great power, which is invariably abused. Perhaps the obscenely rich don't intend to hurt anybody and destroy the environment, but they don't see the consequences of their actions and they don't care. People around the world live in extreme poverty as a consequence; we in the West are isolated from the reality of this, but there is a clear line from wealthy people and corporations seeking more wealth, through local corruption in 3rd world countries to extreme poverty, so calling it petty jealousy when people object to this state of affairs is at best, simply uninformed.
What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content.
The average is all that matters? So, if you live in a room that is 50 degrees centigrade half the day and 0 the other half, you will be confortable in shorts and a t-shirt, because on average the temperature is 25 degrees?
Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.
Isn't 'caring if someone has more than you' what drives capitalism? Ambition, in other words - the constant drive to do better, have more, acquire luxuries; why else would anyone work hard to make more money rather than just hang around in an armchair, beer in hand? What you are saying is nothing more than the shallow excuses for inequality, oppression and slavery, as they have been used throughout the ages. It's the sort of nonsense that goes along with saying "we're better of being poor".
I love the modern idea that works of fiction, specifically written to advance a particular point of view, are somehow indicative of how reality works. It's a movie, it's entertainment.
It isn't a modern idea - just take the Bible and other sacred and above all ancient works of fiction, specifically written to advance a particular point of view. And people actually believed the world was run that way. What is modern is the notion that something like literature or theatre is exclusively meant for entertainment, and even today this is rarely true. Even "mere entertainment" represents a way to collectively reflect on aspects of reality; when people watch the never ending drama and exaggerated posturing and crises in the average soap opera, they know that it isn't realistic - but that is part of the point really: it is an abstraction of things a lot of people know and have an opinion about, and it gives them a way to externalise problems. It may be shallow and stupid, but it isn't detached from people's reality.
I'm not disputing the science of this, but articles like this one are really just pushing the cult of the "Quantum Mystery". QM is difficult to understand intuitively, not because it is a deep mystery, but because it involves a lot of very hard mathematics - functional analysis, Hilbert- and Banach spaces, Lie theory and so on, not to mention measure theory and Lebesgue integrals; and that is before you even attempt to involve relativity in any form. Unfortunately this has led to the rise of a sort of Quantum Priethood, that preach a sort of nonsense quasi religion to people who like to think they get it. It is a real shame, because it taints QM with a whiff of sillyness that probably puts a number of intelligent, young students off, who would have loved the challenge of learning the maths, but are too realistic to want to play at mysteries.
That doesn't sound like a Chinese name at all - even after it has been through the American Language Foreign Name Mangler. To me it sounds more like a Hmong name. Firstly, in Hanyu Pinyin transcription, the letter 'x' is only used before 'i' or 'u', the latter pronounced as a German 'u umlaut'; and 'x' isn't used in any of the other standard transcriptions of Mandarin.
Apart from that - why assume that just because somebody has a name that sounds unfamiliar to you, they must somehow be less than yourself, morally or otherwise?
If it feels right for you, then no problem. But whether you wear spandex or normal clothes, you will of course change when you to work and have a shower. As for fancy bottles and electrolytes - nah. There has been enough research showing that all these special sports products add very little benefit over cheap, everyday things. The body has a very efficient system for retaining the necessary electrolytes, so what you are actually feeling when you hit the wall is more likely to be low blood sugar, which makes you feel feeble, sweaty and aching all over. Water is good enough for most situations, and a couple of bananas for the sugar. Or if you are really keen, a low-alcohol beer, which contains a number of beneficial things and almost tastes OK.
I don't like carbon fibre frames - maybe I've only ever used poor quality ones, but they feel like they become soft and wobbly after a while, which is my main reason for going back to my old Pashley built according to the best practices for Victorian Cast Iron Construction. It's a bit like riding the Forth Bridge, but I like it; it doesn't wobble.
Okay, I get it, you like pain. Because that is the only reason why one would not use suitable clothing, lighter bicycles or clipless pedals.
No, but I don't mind making an effort :-)
Suitable clothing to me is things like dressing up warm enough in the winter and so on; spandex doesn't seem to fit into the picture. As for lighter bicycles, how much of a real difference does it make, unless you are trying to shave off the last millisecond? Other factors are going to make a much bigger difference to most people, like the wind, the gradient etc. When your body weight is something between 60 - 100 kg, and you carry another 5 - 20 kg as luggage, it isn't really going to matter a lot what your bike weighs, unless you are trying to set a record (or you are pedaling a tank). I'm not against technology, but I won't pay for it unless it gives a real advantage on my journey. Simple is often better because there is less to go wrong.
Well, I'm not convinced. Maybe these things make sense for somebody who is into competitive cycling, but most of us aren't, I think - most people simply use a bike as a practical means of transport, which is perfectly sensible; it is a lot healthier, for one thing, and you get to breeze through rush hour. I used to cycle every day to work most of my life, mostly more than 20 km each day, but now the journey is too long, and it would take several hours each way. I have in the past done 100 - 150 km in a day on a "proper bicycle" (ie. the kind that is as heavy as a tank) dragging a trailer, dressed in just whatever counted as normal clothes at the time.
I strongly suspect that for most, dressing up in hi-viz spandex and riding an ultra-light weight bike with locking pedals and what have you is simply a combination of fashion and wishful thinking. I don't want to discourage people from exercising, but wearing brightly coloured clothes that look like they were painted on does tend to highlight the actual shape of your body, and quite often the effect is rather comical.
I can't quite decide whether these comments are serious or some kind of sophisticated sarcasm. Actually, knowing Americans, you are probably serious, but it strikes me as comical in a bizarre kind of way, the amount of passion this invokes and the length people will apparently go to in order to thwart the government, even over the smallest of things.
So, the people that get up in arms over a $15 tax are those that are willing to spend >$200 on a bicycle? If they are anything like what I see - and laugh at - in UK, they are also the ones that pay dearly, so they can look silly in brightly coloured spandex clothing, who buy expensive designer water bottles and other fashion accessories as well as "performance enhancing" energy drinks and -powders. These people feel sorely hurt over having to pay a one-off tax amounting to $15?
... people would queue up to spend $5 to make sure the government didn't get any income.
On the other hand, the same people see nothing wrong in paying far over the odds for accessories that have cost very little to manufacture - probably in China or India - thus feeding both the big businesses that seem to pull the string of government behind the scenes, and the governments of foreign powers. As I see it, this is little more than dumb spite.
You're assuming this connection hasn't been studied before. Its been studied for decades and there are dozens of papers, the OP is correct.
No, I'm referring to the fact that scientific research in the vast majority of cases studies something that has already been studied before. Often the reason is to build up statistical reliability, but it always originates from the fundamental truth, that experiments do not prove a theory; you can falsify, but never prove. Also, although the header says 'Long working days can cause heart problems", the actual theory they refer to, will be probing one or more angles in more detail - like, is it because people sit down all day? Is it because of the stress? The exposure to poor, indoor climate? And so on. As another example, take the theory that masses attract each other according to a certain formula first proposed by Isaac Newton; there are still experiments being carried to this day to confirm this, and they are not all demonstrations to students. Very often the researchers are trying to measure the gravitational constant more precisely, or they are trying to do it with a new technique. I mean, how many times has this experiment been carried out already in the last 300 years? But it is still relevant; science is never finished, only religion claims to give final answers.
Ya, but the Sun is overhead and walls are vertical so we'll have to tip the whole planet to get maximum efficiency.
Well, that is simple: build the wall in Alaska, where the sun is much lower in the sky. Problem solved.
I should start putting actual sugar in my coffee again?
Nope - learn to enjoy black coffee. Or water. Believe me, there is no limit to what a person can actually learn to enjoy the taste of; black coffee is a very minor challenge.
This is a known fact, has been known, has been studied, and is not only common knowledge but also common sense. Another waste of time and money from the No Shit Sherlock Institute of Bloody Obvious Conclusions.
And this is yet another stupid comment from somebody who hasn't a clue about how real science works. Following your lead, we would still have advance no further than the invention of the steam engine and the incandescent lightbulb, because most of modern science has been painstakingly discovered by scientists doing research that people like you would have found utterly useless. You wouldn't have computers, since the necessary discoveries in quantum mechanics wouldn't have been made; hell, you wouldn't even have electricity, since people like Galvani, Volta and Maxwell would have been cosidered idle wastrels and be told to get a real job. And so on. If you want science to progress and bring you useful technologies in the future, you have to put in the investments now in what looks like idle waste of time and money: IOW, fundamental research.
So, basically, you are saying that you are not even willing to contemplate the possibility of entering into a dialog and try to see if a compromise is possible? I am sure something is coming, and I don't think it is a good idea to simply leave it to governments and big business as usual.
I agree that backdoors are stupid - they will be found and a way to exploit them constructed. As for outlawing email encryption - you misunderstood what I said. I'm not talking about outlawing encryption on specific types of communication, but outlawing it on all but a number of well defined types of communication, which is much more doable. I imagine it would be possible to construct a protocol for allowed, encrypted traffic, which it would be possible to identify as legitimate - perhaps something like a public key attached to the unencrypted part of the packet? Something that would be very difficult to fake, but easy to check. And then filter out anything that looks encrypted and doesn't have such a key.
As for what kinds of communications should be allowed to encrypt - if we don't make our voices heard in a sensible manner, then our views will simply be discarded, and it will be decided mostly by big business and a little bit by government.
I do understand the issues, and in general I'd agree with you, but I don't agree with the alarmists that wnat to tell us that it is impossible to find a sensible, workable and above all fair solution. I don't know what form that would take, and it is quite possible that it will have to allow secure encryption, for many practical reasons. I think all parties will have to think outside the box and be willing to accept compromises. But to take encryption as an example - is it really the case that we either allow encryption without restriction, or otherwise have to give up on it altogether? Now, I can at least imagine that it would be possible to find a way to allow encryption on some types of data communication - eg. financial transactions - while disallowing it on, say, emails (not that I am advocating this in particular, it is just an example), and to do it in such a way that we can distinguish between legitimate, encrypted traffic and illegitimately encrypted traffic - without having to decrypt it. Is this challenge beyond the abilities of our civilisation?
So, a politician uses a glib answer to shut up an annoying reporter - is that really news? And he is right, to some degree: in a nation ruled by law, it is of course the law of the land that applies; mathematics may or may not have informed the legislation, but nobody is going to argue in court that the "Laws of Mathematics" overrule the laws of the country, so let's not go overboard.
A lot of legislation consists of guiding principles or declarations of intent; one might even say that the introduction of new laws is a part of the ongoing debate about how to adjust to the ever changing reality of society. The big internet companies have been extremely reluctant to engage with governments around the world in adressing the issues of terrorism, organised crime and other harmful activities that large, social media enable; the media companies always come up with these excuses, like "it is impossible" (meaning, it might hurt our profits), but even govermments employ people who have expert insight and are able to think. I don't think they are demanding the impossible - they are forcing the media companies to come to the table and make serious efforts to solve the problems in a realistic way, which they are quite capable of.
When I see that one of my posts has been downgraded like this one, with no follow-up comments, it seems clear to me that I have hit a nerve with some individual, who is unable to explain why he/she disagrees with my comments. I know some will try to claim that I'm just suffering from hurt pride, but not really - if anything, it shows that my comments provoked a response, and seeing that the 'score' is now "1, Troll", it means that there must have been at least 1 other person who felt I should be bumped up. However, I'd much rather see myself challenged by intelligent arguments; the absence of it is what worries me, since what any nation needs, especially at this time, is intelligent people, who care enough about what goes on to contribute to the debate.
Anyone know why they got rejected in the first place?
No, but I think it is possible to make a reasonable guess: When a populist leader has been making these kinds of radical statements - in Trump's case promising to ban all Muslims from entering the US - then there will be a large number of his followers who are more than willing to implement his words, even if the actual travel ban doesn't cover it. The fact of the matter is that nobody has a right to enter any country - it is up to the discretion of the staff at the embassies, the border agents etc., and they know that in most cases, ordinary people won't challenge a decision they've made. In my experience, the American visa staff are in general extremely arrogant - I remember helping my Chinese wife apply for visa to the US; they were more than willing to take the money, but then they dragged the feet for 6 months (by which time it was no longer relevant), and in the meantime, we got treated like suspects for daring to ask how things were advancing. I think we paid something like £300 for even applying, and would probably have had to go to court in order to make a complaint that wouldn't simply have been ignored. In such a setting, it isn't hard to imagine how and why these girls were denied visas.
I had to look up what Prime Day is - I thought it might be something like Pi Day, which would have been cool, in a way. Somewhere along the same off-topic, tangent, I'd like to suggest 2nd of August (or 8th of February, depending on whether you're American) as Perfect Day, since 28 is a perfect number. Sorry, slow moving day at work.
But inconvenient, in many cases. I got fed up with carrying a pocketfull of heavy change around and always ending up with a load of unshiftable, petty cash. Contactless cards are the ideal way to pay for small purchases.
As for being robbed - I haven't been robbed as such, but somebody once tried to. I have to say, if you are going to mug somebody, you shouldn't leave yourself so open to attack; a knife doesn't protect you from a well aimed kick to the groin, among other things. And if you threaten somebody with a knife, your opponent can legitimately kill you in self-defence.
...vaccinating in an underdeveloped immune system will always produce better long term results than vaccinating in a developed immune system.
Is that universally true, though? I don't remember the specifics, but not long ago I heard about a booster vaccine to BCG (Bacillus Calmetteâ"Guerin, for TB) that failed its efficacy trials because it didn't work in children, although it does work for adults.
If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?
It is a valid question, but I think that problem is a minor one and we have already solved it for passenger airplanes that fly at altitudes where humans can't breathe. The more serious risk in this system stems from the need to maintain a vacuum at all times - if there were a catastrophic failure of vacuum when the train travels at a very high speed, then it would be like slamming into a wall.
This must be one of those new definitions of "here now"
In the world of quantum mechanics, this makes perfect sense; but on the downside, as soon as you observe it, the wavefunction collapses and the train ends up at a random place and time, which is why we ask our customers to keep their eyes closed while travelling.
What competent programmer converts the abstraction of code to ENGLISH to grok it?
Exactly, and that goes for anybody who is even somewhat fluent in any specialist jargon. I doubt a mathematician generally thinks things like "If uppercase M is a module over fracture-uppercase R, a non-abelian, finite ring, ...."; you only use that when you have to communicate your thoughts in a lecture or when writing the LaTeX document for an article. You would tend to think about these things in terms of their "cloud of properties" ("intuitively", in a sense, but more precise), without putting labels (like M or R, or x) on them - so "module", "ring" etc, and then you think in terms of properties and how they interact.
The writing of code is only the last step in the process of developing software - you have thought through the methods and how they are going to interact, when you come to writing them down, more likely than not, you already have a set of habits that more or less dictate how you write things down; like always using i, j, k, l, ... for integer counters, r, q, s, ... for floats and perhaps a handful for variables named foo, bar, yin, yang, down and up; I have a habit of using "up" for exceptions - childish, I know, but it appeals to me that I get to write "throw up" and "catch up".
Earth will survive. If we are dumb enough to destroy everything, then maybe a more intelligent lifeform will thrive. Or if we do not get entirely extinct, Darwinism will be the rule once again. Only the best will survive. Only those who can adapt.
True - well, up to a point. I think it is a misunderstanding to think that "Darwinism" (ie. evolution by natural selection) doesn't rule human evolution just because we are better at controlling diseases etc. Humans and their civilisation are part of nature, just like ants and termites with their complex societies are. Natural selection doesn't care by which means we survive - we have found ways that include technology, that's all; we are still under natural selection. And "the fittest" are not necessarily "the best" in any sense, it is only a label we put on the group that survives a selection event; it could in each case be down to dumb luck, but of course, if you are consistently lucky, then you probably have some trait that makes you better able to survive the sort of crises that the current environment throws at you - thus you may talk about being "fit" for survival.
Life will probably survive - the question is more how much will be lost this time? In particular, how much of the larger biota will disappear - keeping in mind that humans very much belong to the larger end of the fauna? And if we do survive, but most of the animals bigger than, say, rats go extinct, will we evolve to fill the niches left free: human birds, whales, ..., (like in Ringworld, by Larry Niven)? Sorry, that took us well into science fiction, but you get the idea.
Why all the BeauHD hate around here? I watched one of his videos on YouTube and he seems like a nice enough guy. You trolls should just lay off and get a life.
I agree, there is no need to spew poison. That said, though, I find BeauHD deeply annoying - he seems to mainly post references to superficial pop-science with big, glossy pictures that stretch all across the screen and a gawping, "wow, cool" style of wording, and presenting old knowledge as some fantastic, new discovery. He probably hasn't realised that there are many non-sales people on slashdot, or perhaps he just doesn't care.