Check into how this software works. It chooses a sparse set of data points, creates its "model", and then brings in more points to test against. I've used it (though not super seriously) and heard a talk by one of its creators. It's based upon a heuristic of finding the _most_surprising_, _worst_ matches to its guesses and then refining the model. In the sense that it is explicitly used to predict how well it fits to further actual, experimentally-obtained data points, your criterion of it being "tested against a physical environment to determine whether the predictions are correct" is exactly what it does.
You need to revisit KDE, if you left it when it was in the state you describe. I agree with the SQL database crap, but the stability issues have been worked out, at least for me, and I use all of the things you specifically mention.
I'm using Clementine on linux and Windows. It now has those two things (automated album art and lyrics fetching), at least on linux, and I think on Windows too.
Facetious or not, you seem to be spot-on with each of those points. That junk has given me fits each time I've installed KDE on a computer. It's not getting in my way quite as much now, but it sure isn't doing me any favors.
Right. Along with the chirping noise whenever a fingerprint/face/building flashes by on the screen. Reminds me of people who don't turn off the forward/back navigation sounds in Windows.
I've met a couple. I was particularly impressed with Steven Kotler. Of course, he was speaking to a bunch of cynical and dare-you-to-impress-me scientists at Los Alamos. But he sat down (no notes, no overheads, no fucking powerpoints or the equivalents) and just *talked*. And it was fascinating. He did a remarkable job, and utterly convinced me that there are _some_ journalists who want to get it right, who do the background research, who don't pick quotes to make people seem stupider or more hyperbolic or more breathless than they really are, and who was terribly concerned with honestly reporting just what is going on.
*Anything* can be "analysed" by philosophy. Philosophy is, in essence, thinking about stuff. Fine. But thinking about stuff should (in my opinion) include some sort of wondering about whether it's got any connections to the real world.
Religions themselves are sometimes comforting, and they certainly seem to have some common grounds. That's interesting. Their history and the way they've influenced us and our world is interesting.
Religions also consistently fail to accord with reality. That's sad. It's also interesting. And *that's* science.
The problem, though, is that postulates live or die by the successes or failures of the hypotheses which hinge completely upon them. Thus far, all hypotheses hinging on the postulate of a creator of some sort have died. And I haven't seen any which are specific beyond some sort of vague handwaving; their goalposts are shifted all the time.
Besides which, this is exactly what Ockham's razor, Russell's Flying Teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hollow be His penne) are brilliant at showing.
It certainly looks as though your postulate is completely unnecessary.
The Chilean mine is for gold and copper. You might argue that it's even less important than "energy", or that it's more important, or that it provides some sort of "economic energy" or psychological energy, or whatever. But good luck getting gold and copper anywhere else (other than recycling).
You might very much like Chris Langton's story in Waldrop's Complexity. He was in a horrendous accident, and recounts "waking up" in stages, and still not being sure that he's all "back".
The USB scopes are maddeningly horrible at triggering, at sample rates, and at aliasing. You're much, MUCH better off going with a stand-alone scope (LeCroy, Tektronix, Agilent) than any of the ones run by PC. LeCroy doesn't seem to provide much in the way of repair schematics, but Tektronix and Agilent are pretty good in that respect. I'd spring for one of the nicer Agilent/HP or Tektronix scopes, frankly, or even a LeCroy, but never something which is limited to being run by PC solely.
Slashdot Mirror
in 3... 2... 1...
Check into how this software works. It chooses a sparse set of data points, creates its "model", and then brings in more points to test against. I've used it (though not super seriously) and heard a talk by one of its creators. It's based upon a heuristic of finding the _most_surprising_, _worst_ matches to its guesses and then refining the model. In the sense that it is explicitly used to predict how well it fits to further actual, experimentally-obtained data points, your criterion of it being "tested against a physical environment to determine whether the predictions are correct" is exactly what it does.
Ponies!!!11111!1 and hot grits.
You need to revisit KDE, if you left it when it was in the state you describe. I agree with the SQL database crap, but the stability issues have been worked out, at least for me, and I use all of the things you specifically mention.
I'm using Clementine on linux and Windows. It now has those two things (automated album art and lyrics fetching), at least on linux, and I think on Windows too.
Facetious or not, you seem to be spot-on with each of those points. That junk has given me fits each time I've installed KDE on a computer. It's not getting in my way quite as much now, but it sure isn't doing me any favors.
So - can you reproduce the Big Bang and verify that is indeed how the universe was created?.
No.
Can you reproduce evolution to the point of speciation in a laboratory?
Yes. And it's been done, repeatedly.
Right. Along with the chirping noise whenever a fingerprint/face/building flashes by on the screen. Reminds me of people who don't turn off the forward/back navigation sounds in Windows.
I've met a couple. I was particularly impressed with Steven Kotler. Of course, he was speaking to a bunch of cynical and dare-you-to-impress-me scientists at Los Alamos. But he sat down (no notes, no overheads, no fucking powerpoints or the equivalents) and just *talked*. And it was fascinating. He did a remarkable job, and utterly convinced me that there are _some_ journalists who want to get it right, who do the background research, who don't pick quotes to make people seem stupider or more hyperbolic or more breathless than they really are, and who was terribly concerned with honestly reporting just what is going on.
You may well be a Poe, because of your non-understanding of "theory". This is just sad, and you're a brilliant illustration of the problem.
*Anything* can be "analysed" by philosophy. Philosophy is, in essence, thinking about stuff. Fine. But thinking about stuff should (in my opinion) include some sort of wondering about whether it's got any connections to the real world.
Religions themselves are sometimes comforting, and they certainly seem to have some common grounds. That's interesting. Their history and the way they've influenced us and our world is interesting.
Religions also consistently fail to accord with reality. That's sad. It's also interesting. And *that's* science.
Yes, postulates have their places.
The problem, though, is that postulates live or die by the successes or failures of the hypotheses which hinge completely upon them. Thus far, all hypotheses hinging on the postulate of a creator of some sort have died. And I haven't seen any which are specific beyond some sort of vague handwaving; their goalposts are shifted all the time.
Besides which, this is exactly what Ockham's razor, Russell's Flying Teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hollow be His penne) are brilliant at showing.
It certainly looks as though your postulate is completely unnecessary.
You call that "not so bleak"? When ~72% of teachers actually give sky-daddy-dunnit some credence in a science classroom? Holy shit.
Perhaps you should learn a bit about causality and entropy, before (whi you wander in and spout gobbeldygook.
So long as you put the question mark in the right spot . . ..
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=first+post!
There is no "pull", only push.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Given your comments on the crackpot index, I suppose it's the sense of irony. Damn it -- and here I was looking for a physics fight.
Either you've a highly-developed sense of irony, or you don't understand the experiment. Or, perhaps, both.
That's like saying that it's now a human mine, because without humans, the energy isn't going very far.
The Chilean mine is for gold and copper. You might argue that it's even less important than "energy", or that it's more important, or that it provides some sort of "economic energy" or psychological energy, or whatever. But good luck getting gold and copper anywhere else (other than recycling).
Or any of the other tens of accounts of the story which came first. Or other popularizations of it. Or Pratchett.
You might very much like Chris Langton's story in Waldrop's Complexity. He was in a horrendous accident, and recounts "waking up" in stages, and still not being sure that he's all "back".
The USB scopes are maddeningly horrible at triggering, at sample rates, and at aliasing. You're much, MUCH better off going with a stand-alone scope (LeCroy, Tektronix, Agilent) than any of the ones run by PC. LeCroy doesn't seem to provide much in the way of repair schematics, but Tektronix and Agilent are pretty good in that respect. I'd spring for one of the nicer Agilent/HP or Tektronix scopes, frankly, or even a LeCroy, but never something which is limited to being run by PC solely.
And the fish which had previously been quadrupeds and air-breathers can sigh in relief. It's good for everyone!