I've been looking into external hard disks recently - any advice? I'm trying to get an 80GB or higher drive, and from what I've read, WD is the only decent brand. Many of the other companies are putting out drives without power switches (few use USB power alone), and many require a ton of driver installation. What have you had luck with?
"Real life Doom" will only interest them once you can create a realistic simulation of it. They want it to be the most realistic possible without having to stand up. That's why they don't all play paintball and join the Army.
A tiny difference in total called strikes versus balls is irrelevant. Umps don't have problems calling the obvious ones, it's the on-the-edge uncertanties that cause trouble. I'm more interested in what percentage of "difficult calls" were different.
He meant to say "positive punishment," in which an undesirable stimulus is presented in order to decrease the frequency of a target behavior. "Negative reinforcement" is removing unpleasant stimuli (thereby creating a more desirable situation), and hopefully increasing the frequency of the target behavior. Common mistake.
This sytem is only for keeping track of law abiding (or at least those that attempt to be law abiding on some level) people.
It's rather naive of you all to think that they're going to track everyone. Consider how much the average person drives every day, how many cameras would pick them up, and how many times each camera would spot them (how many times do you take the roads near your house). Do you really think the police are going to maintain that kind of database? They're going to have a record of every time a plate passed a specific point? They'd have thousands per car per day. They couldn't maintain that kind of system for an hour, and of course indefinite records would be completely out of the question.
What are they going to do with this info? Why would the police (who are the ones with access to the info) want to know where everyone is all the time? Do you think they have the funds or manpower to do this? I'd say this is just another conspiracy theory in the paranoid minds of/.ers.
My guess is that the system will look for specific plate numbers to catch thieves, and keep all plates on file for 24 hours (perhaps even shorter) to look for cloned plates. They don't have any reason to do anything else, and from what the article says, the technology doesn't seem capable of anything more (3,000 plates every hour isn't very high).
As you should be aware, nothing can ever be proven, but here are some good books for you to check out if you want critical evaluations;
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith is a good (although somewhat technical) account of the problems with creationism, omnipotence, and all other God-related issues.
G.A. Wells has written many books about biblical contradictions and interpretation issues (try The Jesus Myth and Religious Postures).
Beyond Freedom and Dignity by B.F. Skinner is a bit off the mark, but worth the read nonetheless. Though there is little religious reference, it is the best piece of work I've read about behaviorism, and quite nicely explains behavior, morals, etc. in terms of simple conditioning.
But science can make no (firm) statement about which is true.
Not quite. One of the most important parts of any theory is parsimony. Creationism violates this, and therefore science can discount it.
It boils down to a simple hypothetical conversation.
Creationist: Where did the universe come from? Scientist: I can't say for certain. Creationist: God created the universe. Scientist: Where did God come from? Creationist: I can't say for certain.
Basically, you add to the equation, but don't get any answers. The question of 'Where did X come from?' is posed, and saying 'X=Y' is unneccessary and unparsimonious. You can't bring 'Y' into the equation unless it will bring you closer to an answer. Creationists do so, with the claim that science cannot discount it, but science can, and does, say it is incorrect. True, science can't change your 'beliefs', but you can believe 2+2=5, but there's no reason for that to be taken seriously.
Creationism isn't outside the realm of science, but claiming it is is the only way to keep it around.
You know, they could let some of us help out (many sites like this have a number of sub-admins).
They can just add a feedback form for people who pre-view the story. Simple check box for spelling errors, grammar errors, link problems, or other, and a comments field to explain the problem. Then have sub-admins (taken from the userbase) go through them and put together a summary, and submit to admin.
First, your tag analogy doesn't really make much sense in this instance. If there was a tag that said 'Made in ---', where would you think it was from? You wouldn't know. When we collect stardust, it doens't have a big 'Alpha Centari' tag on it. Our decision that something is from another galaxy is based on the particle's composition and our assumptions about different locales and objects in the sky. We get radiation and assume that we completely understand it and therefore know precisely what the body that emitted it was composed of. That's a stretch.
We don't know if, say, Neptune, has some quirk that causes it to produce these particles. That's a very real and very valid issue (don't say we'd see it all coming from Neptune's direction, since it might be affected by, say, magnetic fields, etc).
Also, in nature the word "effort" has no meaning. It doesn't take the Sun any effort to produce heat, it just does it.
As for the your explanation about locale, you did a very good job, I must say. Those are points I had yet to consider, yet do not dissolve my position. If the 'fog' were a part of the 'empty space' in our galaxy (solar sytems and stars could have sucked up patched surrounding them), we would see the exact same phenomena. If the particles only travel a certain distance (i.e. destabilize after being emitted), and the waves as well (i.e. pulled apart by magnetic fields), how would we know it? It is entirely possible that the waves and particles we're getting in have been changed in some way by entering our galaxy (or solar system, etc), as well.
If the instruments were all well constructed along the same lines, we would see this effect, rather than see differences between them. As far as I know, the same technologies and equations are behind them all.
Firstly, don't attack me as not having "capacity for anything other than simple thought". That kind of name calling has no place in a scientific discussion.
I don't think theoretical sciences deserve the same status as pure sciences. Psychology is my field, and I find anything other than behaviorism (the purely scientific arm of pyschology) to be far less valid. I work with cognitive processes, and don't regard psychotherapy as scientific. If you want to call it a "Theoretical Science" go right ahead, but realize that once you have to qualify it, you're diluting it.
"illustrate just how dependent science in general is on theories"
I think you missed my point. Theories are all that matter in science, as I am well aware. My problem with astrophysics is their lack of solid footing. Evolutionary theory can be easily backed up by observations, that's a very important feature. In astrophysics, your observations are on the same arm as your predictions. The lack of independence is a rather large stumbling block. If you have gotten a basic point (or an equation, etc) wrong, your 'observations' will be affected as well.
If you really want me to answer your questions, I can do so, but I don't think they're really relevant.
"Observational astronomy has helped astrophysicists prove and refine their theories. Want proof of the effect of gravity on light as predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? Then just look at gravitational lensing caused by the Sun. Etc, etc."
You cannot prove anything, that's one of the most basic scientific principles. You can support theories, but never wholly be certain of anything. Observational astronomy's effects on astophysicists isn't relevant. Vision lends support to biologists, but that's not particularly significant on its own. As for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, I think it's pretty good, but it seems to break down at extremes. Again, many 'observations' lending support are more mathematical than evidentual.
I'm not damning physics or all of astrophysics, either. All I'm saying is that far too much of it is based on very loose ground. Black holes seem to have too little support, while gravity and planetary motion are backed up very well.
They don't. They don't have any way of knowing it's from another solar system, since they have never been in another solar system.
Most of modern astrophysics isn't scientific, in fact. Unversal expansion, etc. are theories based on microwave radiation coming from all directions, assumed to be coming from distant stars everywhere. Of course, that's just bull (scientifically speaking). We have no way of knowing whether the radiation is just inherent to our solar system, galaxy, or even planet. In fact, it is most likely that the instruments themselves are the problem. Science is based on parsimony, and unfortunately, these are far more simple explanations than 'The whole universe is doing it'. Essentially, there are WAY too many sources of error here. We don't have data from anywhere but here, so observer bias (everyone on Earth would only constitue one observer, as we're all in the same situation), is way too likely in these cases.
I had picked up Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" from the library, but stopped reading it once I realized there wasn't really anything more than fantasy involved. They're trying so hard to get answers that they've forgotten they don't have any solid base for their work.
I agree - holding an ISP accountable for the data transfer of its users is a dangerous precedent.
You know how people hold up cell phones at concerts? Hmm...maybe the RIAA should sue Nokia and Motorolla for making devices that can be used to infringe on copyrights (think copy protection in PCs) and sue Vodafone and Verizon for allowing people to transfer the sounds. Post offices? Parcel services? The people who make envelopes? Yeah, we'll need to take them all out to secure copyrights, then we can move on to landline telecoms and anything else that allows people to communicate. Yeah, society shouldn't be allowed to speak - they may talk about things that someone has the rights to.
Unfortunately, people are assuming it will stay confined to computers indefinitely. I think not.
By definition, a theory must be testable and falsifiable. Religion/faith fall outside these limits, and therefore cannot be called theories. Your reference to "a theory behind religion" would be more correctly stated if you substitude the informal 'idea' in place of the very specific and limited 'theory'.
"it is the direct outcome of
socio-economic situations."
Religion had nothing to do with money or social status in its earliest days. Most early religions were centered around explaining things which were otherwise inexplicable. Most early deities were related to the harvest (which lacked any social or economic significance), typically in the form of the sun or rain.
"theory behind religion "
This wording would indicate that the religion came from a theory, which obviously is not the case. No one plotted out early religions, they just sort of fell together.
"Religion is based on a set of actions which are believed to constitute faith. That some people have faith is in itself besides the point."
To quote the American Heritage Dictionary, religious faith is defined as "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." Religion is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." or "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."
There is "no set of actions" neccessitated. Religion is typically a personal thing, though rituals and actions are sometimes considered consistant or contrary to those beliefs.
"justification of a faith need not necessiate the lack of any"
Be careful with that one. Many religions (esp. more conservative or fundamental ones) would not agree with you. Classic Christian myths like the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table are excellent examples of this.
When I said heaven, I was still referring to Judeo-Christian religions.
Anyway, don't want to get into a big debate here on Slashdot, so I hope you don't take any of this personally or as an attack on religion. It just happens that this is my area of expertise (well, after cognitive psychology, at least).
How can you 'justify' religion based on evolution? There is no "theory behind religion". You're mixing up terminology - theory is a scientific term, and a very strict one at that. It's just nonsensical to attempt to use science to 'justify' or 'support' religion. Religion is based on faith, that's what defines it. Once you start having to 'justify' your beliefs, you have lost faith, and most religions (esp. Judeo-Christian ones) would not consider you a member based on your 'lack of faith'. No one gets into heaven (if your religion happens to have one) if they don't have complete faith.
(I'm a strict scientist, but I study theology as a hobby, so I do know a good deal about this sort of thing.)
How much use would a firewall be vs. a University? I would assume it would keep them out, but they'd just call you and demand you disable it or have your connection turned off. But then, that would give you warning and time to delete any files they wouldn't like (legal or illegal). But couldn't you argue that turning off your firewall would open you up to nasty hackers? I suppose it's no win, but the warning time would be nice (wouldn't take too long to put it all onto CD-Rs or Zip disks, anyway).
All well and good for the editors, who get their money regardless, but not so for researchers. It's "Publish of Perish" in the world of research. If an associate professor wants to keep their job or get promoted to full Professor, they'd better get published, and often. Yeah, the guy who just spent the last year working on a paper is going to hold it back due to some ridiculous fears. Riiiight. People working on grants, etc. will just have to avoid eating for a year to make ends meet. Yeah, that's the ticket. In the end the editors would lose their jobs, too. Great. Let's hear it for science!
I've always thought about that myself. They've always 'got a long way to go' with 45 minutes left, and just finish the last nail at the buzzer. A little too Hollywood in the timing, and it's consistant with every team every time.
Is there really any advantage over a debit card? It would seem it's just an extremely limited one. Debit cards take money directly from your checking account, so they're basically like having cash (you don't pay them back later like credit cards). This new card is just a deibt card that can only hold 107 bucks. Seems like a waste to me. If people just wise up and use debit cards, the change will occur without the government getting involved.
All of you seem to be forgetting a very costly part of going to the store - gas. Yes, fine if you're walking or biking, etc., since you're not incurring any additional expense over the web. Most of us have to drive to the store, and the cash spent on gas adds up quickly. It may seem negligible, but it most certainly isn't. In places like the UK, where petrol is ridiculously costly, people are more aware of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, not everyone on /. is a programmer, you know.
I wasn't sure if they could do that - thanks.
I'm getting the same:
"This story has been viewed 1128 times."
I checked the source - it's just text in there, not java or anything, so don't expect it to go up until some guy in their office updates it.
Email, eh? So what happens when your AIBO gets on a few mailing lists and the spam starts coming in?
I suppose it will be similar to what happens when a real dog gets some spam - you'll have to deal with some strange shit.
I've been looking into external hard disks recently - any advice? I'm trying to get an 80GB or higher drive, and from what I've read, WD is the only decent brand. Many of the other companies are putting out drives without power switches (few use USB power alone), and many require a ton of driver installation. What have you had luck with?
"Real life Doom" will only interest them once you can create a realistic simulation of it. They want it to be the most realistic possible without having to stand up. That's why they don't all play paintball and join the Army.
A tiny difference in total called strikes versus balls is irrelevant. Umps don't have problems calling the obvious ones, it's the on-the-edge uncertanties that cause trouble. I'm more interested in what percentage of "difficult calls" were different.
He meant to say "positive punishment," in which an undesirable stimulus is presented in order to decrease the frequency of a target behavior. "Negative reinforcement" is removing unpleasant stimuli (thereby creating a more desirable situation), and hopefully increasing the frequency of the target behavior. Common mistake.
(I've got one year left on my BA in Psychology)
This sytem is only for keeping track of law abiding (or at least those that attempt to be law abiding on some level) people.
/.ers.
It's rather naive of you all to think that they're going to track everyone. Consider how much the average person drives every day, how many cameras would pick them up, and how many times each camera would spot them (how many times do you take the roads near your house). Do you really think the police are going to maintain that kind of database? They're going to have a record of every time a plate passed a specific point? They'd have thousands per car per day. They couldn't maintain that kind of system for an hour, and of course indefinite records would be completely out of the question.
What are they going to do with this info? Why would the police (who are the ones with access to the info) want to know where everyone is all the time? Do you think they have the funds or manpower to do this? I'd say this is just another conspiracy theory in the paranoid minds of
My guess is that the system will look for specific plate numbers to catch thieves, and keep all plates on file for 24 hours (perhaps even shorter) to look for cloned plates. They don't have any reason to do anything else, and from what the article says, the technology doesn't seem capable of anything more (3,000 plates every hour isn't very high).
As you should be aware, nothing can ever be proven, but here are some good books for you to check out if you want critical evaluations;
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith is a good (although somewhat technical) account of the problems with creationism, omnipotence, and all other God-related issues.
G.A. Wells has written many books about biblical contradictions and interpretation issues (try The Jesus Myth and Religious Postures ).
Beyond Freedom and Dignity by B.F. Skinner is a bit off the mark, but worth the read nonetheless. Though there is little religious reference, it is the best piece of work I've read about behaviorism, and quite nicely explains behavior, morals, etc. in terms of simple conditioning.
But science can make no (firm) statement about which is true.
Not quite. One of the most important parts of any theory is parsimony. Creationism violates this, and therefore science can discount it.
It boils down to a simple hypothetical conversation.
Creationist: Where did the universe come from?
Scientist: I can't say for certain.
Creationist: God created the universe.
Scientist: Where did God come from?
Creationist: I can't say for certain.
Basically, you add to the equation, but don't get any answers. The question of 'Where did X come from?' is posed, and saying 'X=Y' is unneccessary and unparsimonious. You can't bring 'Y' into the equation unless it will bring you closer to an answer. Creationists do so, with the claim that science cannot discount it, but science can, and does, say it is incorrect. True, science can't change your 'beliefs', but you can believe 2+2=5, but there's no reason for that to be taken seriously.
Creationism isn't outside the realm of science, but claiming it is is the only way to keep it around.
Indeed.
You know, they could let some of us help out (many sites like this have a number of sub-admins).
They can just add a feedback form for people who pre-view the story. Simple check box for spelling errors, grammar errors, link problems, or other, and a comments field to explain the problem. Then have sub-admins (taken from the userbase) go through them and put together a summary, and submit to admin.
First, your tag analogy doesn't really make much sense in this instance. If there was a tag that said 'Made in ---', where would you think it was from? You wouldn't know. When we collect stardust, it doens't have a big 'Alpha Centari' tag on it. Our decision that something is from another galaxy is based on the particle's composition and our assumptions about different locales and objects in the sky. We get radiation and assume that we completely understand it and therefore know precisely what the body that emitted it was composed of. That's a stretch.
We don't know if, say, Neptune, has some quirk that causes it to produce these particles. That's a very real and very valid issue (don't say we'd see it all coming from Neptune's direction, since it might be affected by, say, magnetic fields, etc).
Also, in nature the word "effort" has no meaning. It doesn't take the Sun any effort to produce heat, it just does it.
As for the your explanation about locale, you did a very good job, I must say. Those are points I had yet to consider, yet do not dissolve my position. If the 'fog' were a part of the 'empty space' in our galaxy (solar sytems and stars could have sucked up patched surrounding them), we would see the exact same phenomena. If the particles only travel a certain distance (i.e. destabilize after being emitted), and the waves as well (i.e. pulled apart by magnetic fields), how would we know it? It is entirely possible that the waves and particles we're getting in have been changed in some way by entering our galaxy (or solar system, etc), as well.
If the instruments were all well constructed along the same lines, we would see this effect, rather than see differences between them. As far as I know, the same technologies and equations are behind them all.
Firstly, don't attack me as not having "capacity for anything other than simple thought". That kind of name calling has no place in a scientific discussion.
I don't think theoretical sciences deserve the same status as pure sciences. Psychology is my field, and I find anything other than behaviorism (the purely scientific arm of pyschology) to be far less valid. I work with cognitive processes, and don't regard psychotherapy as scientific. If you want to call it a "Theoretical Science" go right ahead, but realize that once you have to qualify it, you're diluting it.
"illustrate just how dependent science in general is on theories"
I think you missed my point. Theories are all that matter in science, as I am well aware. My problem with astrophysics is their lack of solid footing. Evolutionary theory can be easily backed up by observations, that's a very important feature. In astrophysics, your observations are on the same arm as your predictions. The lack of independence is a rather large stumbling block. If you have gotten a basic point (or an equation, etc) wrong, your 'observations' will be affected as well.
If you really want me to answer your questions, I can do so, but I don't think they're really relevant.
"Observational astronomy has helped astrophysicists prove and refine their theories. Want proof of the effect of gravity on light as predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? Then just look at gravitational lensing caused by the Sun. Etc, etc."
You cannot prove anything, that's one of the most basic scientific principles. You can support theories, but never wholly be certain of anything. Observational astronomy's effects on astophysicists isn't relevant. Vision lends support to biologists, but that's not particularly significant on its own. As for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, I think it's pretty good, but it seems to break down at extremes. Again, many 'observations' lending support are more mathematical than evidentual.
I'm not damning physics or all of astrophysics, either. All I'm saying is that far too much of it is based on very loose ground. Black holes seem to have too little support, while gravity and planetary motion are backed up very well.
They don't. They don't have any way of knowing it's from another solar system, since they have never been in another solar system.
Most of modern astrophysics isn't scientific, in fact. Unversal expansion, etc. are theories based on microwave radiation coming from all directions, assumed to be coming from distant stars everywhere. Of course, that's just bull (scientifically speaking). We have no way of knowing whether the radiation is just inherent to our solar system, galaxy, or even planet. In fact, it is most likely that the instruments themselves are the problem. Science is based on parsimony, and unfortunately, these are far more simple explanations than 'The whole universe is doing it'. Essentially, there are WAY too many sources of error here. We don't have data from anywhere but here, so observer bias (everyone on Earth would only constitue one observer, as we're all in the same situation), is way too likely in these cases.
I had picked up Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" from the library, but stopped reading it once I realized there wasn't really anything more than fantasy involved. They're trying so hard to get answers that they've forgotten they don't have any solid base for their work.
I agree - holding an ISP accountable for the data transfer of its users is a dangerous precedent.
You know how people hold up cell phones at concerts? Hmm...maybe the RIAA should sue Nokia and Motorolla for making devices that can be used to infringe on copyrights (think copy protection in PCs) and sue Vodafone and Verizon for allowing people to transfer the sounds. Post offices? Parcel services? The people who make envelopes? Yeah, we'll need to take them all out to secure copyrights, then we can move on to landline telecoms and anything else that allows people to communicate. Yeah, society shouldn't be allowed to speak - they may talk about things that someone has the rights to.
Unfortunately, people are assuming it will stay confined to computers indefinitely. I think not.
Thanks for the excellent response and book suggestion. I just took it out of the library at your suggestion.
By definition, a theory must be testable and falsifiable. Religion/faith fall outside these limits, and therefore cannot be called theories. Your reference to "a theory behind religion" would be more correctly stated if you substitude the informal 'idea' in place of the very specific and limited 'theory'.
"it is the direct outcome of socio-economic situations."
Religion had nothing to do with money or social status in its earliest days. Most early religions were centered around explaining things which were otherwise inexplicable. Most early deities were related to the harvest (which lacked any social or economic significance), typically in the form of the sun or rain.
"theory behind religion "
This wording would indicate that the religion came from a theory, which obviously is not the case. No one plotted out early religions, they just sort of fell together.
"Religion is based on a set of actions which are believed to constitute faith. That some people have faith is in itself besides the point."
To quote the American Heritage Dictionary, religious faith is defined as "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." Religion is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." or "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." There is "no set of actions" neccessitated. Religion is typically a personal thing, though rituals and actions are sometimes considered consistant or contrary to those beliefs.
"justification of a faith need not necessiate the lack of any"
Be careful with that one. Many religions (esp. more conservative or fundamental ones) would not agree with you. Classic Christian myths like the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table are excellent examples of this.
When I said heaven, I was still referring to Judeo-Christian religions.
Anyway, don't want to get into a big debate here on Slashdot, so I hope you don't take any of this personally or as an attack on religion. It just happens that this is my area of expertise (well, after cognitive psychology, at least).
How can you 'justify' religion based on evolution? There is no "theory behind religion". You're mixing up terminology - theory is a scientific term, and a very strict one at that. It's just nonsensical to attempt to use science to 'justify' or 'support' religion. Religion is based on faith, that's what defines it. Once you start having to 'justify' your beliefs, you have lost faith, and most religions (esp. Judeo-Christian ones) would not consider you a member based on your 'lack of faith'. No one gets into heaven (if your religion happens to have one) if they don't have complete faith.
(I'm a strict scientist, but I study theology as a hobby, so I do know a good deal about this sort of thing.)
How much use would a firewall be vs. a University? I would assume it would keep them out, but they'd just call you and demand you disable it or have your connection turned off. But then, that would give you warning and time to delete any files they wouldn't like (legal or illegal).
But couldn't you argue that turning off your firewall would open you up to nasty hackers? I suppose it's no win, but the warning time would be nice (wouldn't take too long to put it all onto CD-Rs or Zip disks, anyway).
All well and good for the editors, who get their money regardless, but not so for researchers. It's "Publish of Perish" in the world of research. If an associate professor wants to keep their job or get promoted to full Professor, they'd better get published, and often. Yeah, the guy who just spent the last year working on a paper is going to hold it back due to some ridiculous fears. Riiiight. People working on grants, etc. will just have to avoid eating for a year to make ends meet. Yeah, that's the ticket. In the end the editors would lose their jobs, too. Great. Let's hear it for science!
I've always thought about that myself. They've always 'got a long way to go' with 45 minutes left, and just finish the last nail at the buzzer. A little too Hollywood in the timing, and it's consistant with every team every time.
Is there really any advantage over a debit card? It would seem it's just an extremely limited one. Debit cards take money directly from your checking account, so they're basically like having cash (you don't pay them back later like credit cards). This new card is just a deibt card that can only hold 107 bucks. Seems like a waste to me. If people just wise up and use debit cards, the change will occur without the government getting involved.
All of you seem to be forgetting a very costly part of going to the store - gas. Yes, fine if you're walking or biking, etc., since you're not incurring any additional expense over the web. Most of us have to drive to the store, and the cash spent on gas adds up quickly. It may seem negligible, but it most certainly isn't. In places like the UK, where petrol is ridiculously costly, people are more aware of it.