An investigation of the past from existing evidence should result in an expanding tree of possible causes. "This layer of rock could have been deposited over milions of years or in a single cataclysm." All possible causes should be explored until logically eliminated.
You think that this isn't exactly how science works? You seem to have some serious misunderstandings about the scientific process. Granted, most scientists don't waste their time considering remote possibilities (Occam's Razor) but they work exactly as you suggest they should. That is the scientific process, make observations and create theories based on that. If evidence is found that contradicts the theory, fix it.
And how do scientists know what theories are contradicted by experiments? It's called education. There is a reason why it takes more than mailing in a form from the back of a comic book to become a scientist.
I think that point is wrong. With an online calendar you have to hunt around to try and potential target in your area. If you're lucky the person you find isn't a college student who's $30 DVD player is the most expensive thing they own.
Using the traditional method you pick from any of the many nearby residences that look like good targets and you just wait for them to leave. I can't imagine any advantage one would gain by using random people's online calendars.
As to powering the unit, a nuclear plant would probably be used to start, and then eventually large solar arrays at differing points along the stretch would come into use, taking over the primary power duties while the nuclear plant remained as a backup.
You would think a lot of the energy from the descent could be converted to electricity and stored to be used again for the ascent.
Damn straight. DVD's do a damn fine job of letting me watch movies, i don't see myself ever needing to upgrade formats. Get back to me when 3D holographic displays are under $200. Then maybe I'll reconsider.
Re:predictable consequences
on
More Wiki Than Ever
·
· Score: 2, Informative
1. There are two wikipedia's - public and "underground". There are two classes of people for those two wikipedia's. Instead of one most recent version with equal access, now we will have two. Depending on the level of care for the underground Universe - it will becomes "street"opedia as in wise and street-wise.
That's just silly. For that to be the case it would require a conspiracy of all registered wikipedia users to prevent the best, most up to date pages from being seen by the unwashed masses. Obviously that's not going to happen.
2. Wrappers around "underground" wikipedia will appear exposing it to the public.
A person would think twice about changing something when the record would show that he thereby made it inferior.
If that was the case, that would be rather unfortunate. Just because Penrose has verified that a certain page is accurate as best as he knows, doesn't mean that it doesn't have room for improvement. Especially in a field such as Cosmology where changes are so frequent and substantial. It would not be good for any sort of marking that would hinder future development of the page.
Those are both absolutely rubbish definitions. The first definition is basically "A planet is a planet". Of course Pluto fits that definition, it's listed right there in the definition. But how does that help you when it comes time to classify a newly discovered body?
The second definition is just as bad, "a similar body revolving about a star other than the sun". None of the planets we've discovered so far around other stars are similar to the planets in our solar system. They are way bigger, orbit much closer. In what way are they similar enough in that we call them planets?
The "truth" about Pluto that has been known for years is that it was an oddball. It's orbit was way different from the other planets, it was way smaller, it had a "moon" that was so big it doesn't even orbit around pluto, the two orbit each other.
Yeah, we knew it was weird. Even so, as long as it was unique and still substantially larger then most of the objects in our solar system why not call it a planet? Well it turns out it's not so unique after all and so the planet designation doesn't make so much sense in hindsight.
You seem far to attached to outdated ideas and information. That is not how science works. Each new discovery potentially leads us to rethink what we thought we knew.
Yeah everyones been using the word planet for years, the point is that we had no way to say what orbital bodies should be considered planets and which were just big rocks. For most of history anything that was found orbiting the earth was called a planet. This worked well at the time, because the only things we could see were the closest planet sized orbiting bodies. Comets were an exception, but their tails clearly set them apart. Even when Pluto was discovered this was mostly the case, however at that time we actually had two classifications, asteroids were small abnormally shaped objects in orbit, any huge round thing was either a planet or a moon.
For most of the past 100 years this ad hoc classification for planets and asteroids worked quite well. It's only been in the past 5 years that we have started finding more massive bodies that while they sure didn't look like asteroids, they were so small compared to all the other planets (other than Pluto) no one really wanted to call them planets. This is what caused the recent growing realization that we needed to agree on a general definition of what really qualifies something as a planet.
The difference is that the earth isn't flat. This decision to change Pluto's planetary status was not caused by new data about Pluto, it was caused by the change in a definition of what a plant is.
Wrong. Their was no previous definition of what a planet was. The decision to change Pluto's status was caused by the discovery of many similar yet increasingly smaller and insignificant bodies in our solar system. The official definition of what constitutes a planet may not be perfect, but it is long overdue.
You, sir, are my fucking here! Is there anything more disgustingly intrusive, impertinent, and unjustifiable that requiring your employee's to hand over a cup of their piss? The worst thing about them is that they don't even test for alcohol, the drug most likely to be abused and affect job performance. They are a farce and an abuse of authority. Nothing more.
a) The RIAA doesn't pass laws. They may buy lawmakers, but that's not the same thing.
The only reason their is a difference is because of oil and defense contractors competing for congress' time.
b) You cannot "ban all torrents within America" or anywhere else by simply passing laws. It's already illegal, exactly how would making it "more illegal" stop it?
Yeah, it won't stop it. That's not the point of banning it. See also: War on Drugs
c) Everything after the word "America" in your sentence makes absolutely no sense and is just ranting against Bush for some reason.
Actually, I think the part after "America" was ranting against the spineless foreign government's who cave into the will of American corporate interests.
Occam's Razor alone puts this towards the bottom of the credibility list. "The government is just trying to scare you!"
Is that you Mr van Winkle? You're finally awake! You have been asleep for quite awhile so you're confusion is understandable. I'll give you some time to catch up.
That's true in general. However specifically regarding drug related crime, the cause is mostly the illegality of it. You must have missed that part.
FWIW, I think that the current drug war is already far to fascist and repressive. We could rid ourselves of a lot of crime, and a lot of criminals, and at the same time increase our personal privacy and freedom all at a net savings for government if only we seriously rethought our drug policy. Seems like a no brainer, so why haven't we done it? Oh yeah, drugs are "bad".
I hope you realise that there is a massive middle-ground between the two situations you describe. You are in no way limited to either a cheap cover band or a big label, Clear Channel rip off production. I got to $5-12 shows all the time and not a cover tune is heard.
What do you suppose should have been done differently? How would you suggest the government could successfully suppress the profit motives of the bootleggers, as well as the basic natural tendency of people to enjoy drinking while at the same time not creating a wholly repressive fascist society where everyone's actions can be monitored and controlled by said government?
I can't imagine that would ever be possible, but it's possible I am missing something.
Crack is a product of the drug war. It probably wouldn't exist if cocaine was never made illegal and thus causing suppliers to find smaller, more potent forms of the drug.
And experience proves that alcohol prohibition was nothing but a colossal failure. Now the next step in the rational thought process is that the failed alcohol prohibition of yore is no different from the current failed prohibition.
The only people I can imagine actually supporting the drug war are either people who have no notion of history, or those who are profiting immensely from it in some way.
That'd work if everybody took complete responsibility for their own bodies. But they don't. They take drugs, get horribly sick and then expect the rest of us to take care of them either via taxes (in the UK) or higher insurance premiums (in the US).
So it's much better as it is now where people take drugs, get arrested, and put in jail where we end up paying to take care of them for 20 years.
Yes, but Democrats tend to see the entire Republican Party as too close to President Bush, also.
Does that surprise you? Have they done something I'm unaware of which would make that belief incorrect? Like Lieberman, the Republican's have almost entirely abandoned their duties to oversee the executive branch. The congress during Clinton's years spent hundreds of hours investigating Clinton's Christmas card list while they don't spend more than two days worth of effort to investigate the startlingly serious allegations of abuse in Abu Ghraib (source). To put it mildly, those are some seriously fucked up priorities.
I've got to say you are way off on this. Granted I have a liberal slant myself, but I've seen examples of people being banned from some of the major conservative blogs from just one post. The left wing sites just seem more open to discussion. What is freedom of speech, after all, if not a liberal value? Rare indeed is the conservative political party which advocates tolerance.
I'm familiar with that quote, which is usually misattributed to Churchill, but I've never found it to ring particularly true.
I actually went the reverse. I was a conservative at 20 and at (approaching) thirty would consider myself a liberal. I don't believe I've gotten any dumber over the past decade. It's just that I realize what a terrible world this would be if everyone did solely what was best for themselves. As it is the ones in power are pretty much there but thankfully they do not really represent the whole of our populace, even if legally they in fact do.
Slashdot Mirror
An investigation of the past from existing evidence should result in an expanding tree of possible causes. "This layer of rock could have been deposited over milions of years or in a single cataclysm." All possible causes should be explored until logically eliminated.
You think that this isn't exactly how science works? You seem to have some serious misunderstandings about the scientific process. Granted, most scientists don't waste their time considering remote possibilities (Occam's Razor) but they work exactly as you suggest they should. That is the scientific process, make observations and create theories based on that. If evidence is found that contradicts the theory, fix it.
And how do scientists know what theories are contradicted by experiments? It's called education. There is a reason why it takes more than mailing in a form from the back of a comic book to become a scientist.
No way man, the El Camino is definatly Lynnrd Skynnrd.
I think that point is wrong. With an online calendar you have to hunt around to try and potential target in your area. If you're lucky the person you find isn't a college student who's $30 DVD player is the most expensive thing they own.
Using the traditional method you pick from any of the many nearby residences that look like good targets and you just wait for them to leave. I can't imagine any advantage one would gain by using random people's online calendars.
As to powering the unit, a nuclear plant would probably be used to start, and then eventually large solar arrays at differing points along the stretch would come into use, taking over the primary power duties while the nuclear plant remained as a backup.
You would think a lot of the energy from the descent could be converted to electricity and stored to be used again for the ascent.
Most rooms are stationary...
Speak for yourself! Obviously you're not a carney.
Damn straight. DVD's do a damn fine job of letting me watch movies, i don't see myself ever needing to upgrade formats. Get back to me when 3D holographic displays are under $200. Then maybe I'll reconsider.
1. There are two wikipedia's - public and "underground". There are two classes of people for those two wikipedia's. Instead of one most recent version with equal access, now we will have two. Depending on the level of care for the underground Universe - it will becomes "street"opedia as in wise and street-wise.
That's just silly. For that to be the case it would require a conspiracy of all registered wikipedia users to prevent the best, most up to date pages from being seen by the unwashed masses. Obviously that's not going to happen.
2. Wrappers around "underground" wikipedia will appear exposing it to the public.
More power to them.
A person would think twice about changing something when the record would show that he thereby made it inferior.
If that was the case, that would be rather unfortunate. Just because Penrose has verified that a certain page is accurate as best as he knows, doesn't mean that it doesn't have room for improvement. Especially in a field such as Cosmology where changes are so frequent and substantial. It would not be good for any sort of marking that would hinder future development of the page.
Those are both absolutely rubbish definitions. The first definition is basically "A planet is a planet". Of course Pluto fits that definition, it's listed right there in the definition. But how does that help you when it comes time to classify a newly discovered body?
The second definition is just as bad, "a similar body revolving about a star other than the sun". None of the planets we've discovered so far around other stars are similar to the planets in our solar system. They are way bigger, orbit much closer. In what way are they similar enough in that we call them planets?
The "truth" about Pluto that has been known for years is that it was an oddball. It's orbit was way different from the other planets, it was way smaller, it had a "moon" that was so big it doesn't even orbit around pluto, the two orbit each other.
Yeah, we knew it was weird. Even so, as long as it was unique and still substantially larger then most of the objects in our solar system why not call it a planet? Well it turns out it's not so unique after all and so the planet designation doesn't make so much sense in hindsight.
You seem far to attached to outdated ideas and information. That is not how science works. Each new discovery potentially leads us to rethink what we thought we knew.
Yeah everyones been using the word planet for years, the point is that we had no way to say what orbital bodies should be considered planets and which were just big rocks. For most of history anything that was found orbiting the earth was called a planet. This worked well at the time, because the only things we could see were the closest planet sized orbiting bodies. Comets were an exception, but their tails clearly set them apart. Even when Pluto was discovered this was mostly the case, however at that time we actually had two classifications, asteroids were small abnormally shaped objects in orbit, any huge round thing was either a planet or a moon.
For most of the past 100 years this ad hoc classification for planets and asteroids worked quite well. It's only been in the past 5 years that we have started finding more massive bodies that while they sure didn't look like asteroids, they were so small compared to all the other planets (other than Pluto) no one really wanted to call them planets. This is what caused the recent growing realization that we needed to agree on a general definition of what really qualifies something as a planet.
The difference is that the earth isn't flat. This decision to change Pluto's planetary status was not caused by new data about Pluto, it was caused by the change in a definition of what a plant is.
Wrong. Their was no previous definition of what a planet was. The decision to change Pluto's status was caused by the discovery of many similar yet increasingly smaller and insignificant bodies in our solar system. The official definition of what constitutes a planet may not be perfect, but it is long overdue.
You, sir, are my fucking here! Is there anything more disgustingly intrusive, impertinent, and unjustifiable that requiring your employee's to hand over a cup of their piss? The worst thing about them is that they don't even test for alcohol, the drug most likely to be abused and affect job performance. They are a farce and an abuse of authority. Nothing more.
a) The RIAA doesn't pass laws. They may buy lawmakers, but that's not the same thing.
The only reason their is a difference is because of oil and defense contractors competing for congress' time.
b) You cannot "ban all torrents within America" or anywhere else by simply passing laws. It's already illegal, exactly how would making it "more illegal" stop it?
Yeah, it won't stop it. That's not the point of banning it.
See also: War on Drugs
c) Everything after the word "America" in your sentence makes absolutely no sense and is just ranting against Bush for some reason.
Actually, I think the part after "America" was ranting against the spineless foreign government's who cave into the will of American corporate interests.
That's true in general. However specifically regarding drug related crime, the cause is mostly the illegality of it. You must have missed that part.
FWIW, I think that the current drug war is already far to fascist and repressive. We could rid ourselves of a lot of crime, and a lot of criminals, and at the same time increase our personal privacy and freedom all at a net savings for government if only we seriously rethought our drug policy. Seems like a no brainer, so why haven't we done it? Oh yeah, drugs are "bad".
I hope you realise that there is a massive middle-ground between the two situations you describe. You are in no way limited to either a cheap cover band or a big label, Clear Channel rip off production. I got to $5-12 shows all the time and not a cover tune is heard.
What do you suppose should have been done differently? How would you suggest the government could successfully suppress the profit motives of the bootleggers, as well as the basic natural tendency of people to enjoy drinking while at the same time not creating a wholly repressive fascist society where everyone's actions can be monitored and controlled by said government?
I can't imagine that would ever be possible, but it's possible I am missing something.
Crack is a product of the drug war. It probably wouldn't exist if cocaine was never made illegal and thus causing suppliers to find smaller, more potent forms of the drug.
The only people I can imagine actually supporting the drug war are either people who have no notion of history, or those who are profiting immensely from it in some way.
That'd work if everybody took complete responsibility for their own bodies. But they don't. They take drugs, get horribly sick and then expect the rest of us to take care of them either via taxes (in the UK) or higher insurance premiums (in the US).
So it's much better as it is now where people take drugs, get arrested, and put in jail where we end up paying to take care of them for 20 years.
Exactly! You think it's a coincidence that pot was banned just a few years after alcohol prohibition ended?
Yes, but Democrats tend to see the entire Republican Party as too close to President Bush, also.
Does that surprise you? Have they done something I'm unaware of which would make that belief incorrect? Like Lieberman, the Republican's have almost entirely abandoned their duties to oversee the executive branch. The congress during Clinton's years spent hundreds of hours investigating Clinton's Christmas card list while they don't spend more than two days worth of effort to investigate the startlingly serious allegations of abuse in Abu Ghraib (source). To put it mildly, those are some seriously fucked up priorities.
There's a lot of weird stuff I've read about Edison on the internet.
I've got to say you are way off on this. Granted I have a liberal slant myself, but I've seen examples of people being banned from some of the major conservative blogs from just one post. The left wing sites just seem more open to discussion. What is freedom of speech, after all, if not a liberal value? Rare indeed is the conservative political party which advocates tolerance.
I'm familiar with that quote, which is usually misattributed to Churchill, but I've never found it to ring particularly true.
I actually went the reverse. I was a conservative at 20 and at (approaching) thirty would consider myself a liberal. I don't believe I've gotten any dumber over the past decade. It's just that I realize what a terrible world this would be if everyone did solely what was best for themselves. As it is the ones in power are pretty much there but thankfully they do not really represent the whole of our populace, even if legally they in fact do.