and host the German version on de.gmail.com instead of gmail.de ? I'm not sure exactly how it works, but that wouldn't absolve them of culpability. Take Microsoft's being fined a huge amount of money for packaging Windows Media Player with Windows.
Are they giving him a share of the overall revenues (unlikely), or a percentage of adclicks on his videos? (Which seems more likely, despite the oddity of wanting to be paid for someone clicking away from your content...)
Spyware, adware and viruses all cause issues for many of our customers, sure. Probably the frustrating part is that maybe one in fifty of them even have a product key we can use to legally reinstall with. The best we can do for them is install AVG and Spybot, and possibly use the Repair feature of an XP disc.
Anyone with any real-life experience with Windows has suffered plenty of problems with 2K/XP's bad behaviour. There's an illusion of stability because by default, XP'll reboot instead of bluescreen, but that's just spin control. Very true, but I've typically seen that occur as the result of a hardware problem, not a software problem. In the PC Clinics I've run, blowing the dust out of a CPU's heat sink has fixed more computers than system reinstalls or driver upgrades. (That's not to say the latter two cases don't occur...)
I would argue that, in this scenario, the heat generated by the electric current is the instigator for both the bang and the flash. The bang doesn't arise from the incandescence, but from the increased air pressure derived from the heat. The incandescence also derives itself from the heat.
We're not talking about a chain of events, but a tree. The pressure increase and incandescence are independently caused by the heat. One doesn't cause the other, they're both symptoms of the same underlying phenomenon.
But enough nitpicking. There's plenty of other interesting conversation attached to this article.:-)
you cannot detect any effect of the lightning before it is visible. Nitpick: "Visible" is not the correct word here. There is electric current flowing before the air becomes hot enough to be incandescent.
Of course, now we're talking about predicting an event based on timely evidence strongly correlated to its occasion.
The hierarchy might not be such a bad idea actually if it wasn't the case that astrophysicists have increasingly found themselves behind desks and at computers rather than in laboratories. And who do you think writes the simulations that they use? Simulations are procedurally-codified theories about how something works. Astrophysicists take a theory, write a simulation taking into account all the known variables, run it through the computer for a few days, look at the results, then try to find matching conditions using telescopes. If they find matching conditions, then they have evidence that their theory is correct. If they don't, then they have evidence that their theory is incorrect.
Their laboratory is the sky itself, and the telescopes they use. One of your posts talks about absorption lines. If you're going to make arguments based on absorption lines of stars, then you are implicitly accepting the same laboratory astrophysicists use, because you're accepting the same data astrophysicists use.
Now, it sounds like some of you are actively taking your theories and looking for relevant data. That's a good thing, just be willing to accept if/when some of your base assumptions turn out to be false. That's something "mainstream" science has had to deal with since the days when alchemists (Then "mainstream" scientists) believed that there four elements, two of which were different kinds of bile.
Take a look at the scientific process...it was described millennia ago, and has served up some kick-ass results. It doesn't really sound to me like you have a problem with the scientific process, but with astrophysicists specifically. If that's the case, ask yourself why. Does it have something to do with the fact that their theories can't be proven on a workbench and on a human timescale? How would EU, or any other theory at that scale, be any different?
Sometimes, in fact, mediocre people come up with some pretty smart ideas. Never, ever use that as an argument, justification, evidence or anything else. Those statements come across as pity pleas. Most of your complaints center around the perception that EU doesn't get any respect. Those complaints may or may not hold water, but then you turn around and come back with statements like this one.
You can have respect, or you can have pity. You can't have both. Respect gives your arguments life, pity leads people to ignore you.
If fusion occurs where and how your sources says it is, it should be a simple matter to perform a laboratory-condition demonstration of this effect. If you can demonstrate fusion without the temperatures found at the center of the sun, I might be less disinclined to believe the EU concept.
Don't tell me none of the labs will touch it, though. At the very least, The EU folks should be capable of annoying "mainstream" scientists enough that some mainstream scientist would perform the experiment. Quantum mechanics annoyed Einstein and other physicists sufficiently that they came up with a thought experiment intended to discredit QM.
If such a thought experiment can be turned in favor of QM because of QM's merit (see a Slashdot article from last week or the week before about "spooky action at a distance"), then surely, if EU has merit, experiments intended to disprove EU can be turned in EU's favor.
Come back when that happens. If it already has happened, provide links to and/or names of actual papers, not more sites that describe the theory in layman's terms. Basing arguments on layman's terminology is disingenuous; An analogy can never be more true than the evidence.
(That link was the first hit on google for a search on CSS, incidentally...) Pardon my rant, but hints at using Google for questions really are endemic, yet not helpul. While Google is very good at returning hits for the savvy user, it actually does very poor at returning hits for people who don't know much about the field of the search terms they're looking for.
Often, this is because a certain art is required to figure out an effective set of keywords to get decent results (I frequently have to try three or four different keyword combinations and orders to get good results), but even for CSS, as per your example, it's not necessarily helpful for those "not in the know."
Your link, w3schools, is great for someone who already knows something about graphics design, or at least knows what it is. It wouldn't be helpful at all to, say, my gamer cousin who spends most of his time on BF2 and WoW, or my grandmother who only uses the Internet to stay in contact with family members across the country.
If you were to argue that w3schools isn't intended for them, then you're necessarily demonstrating my point that googling for something, e.g. "CSS", isn't necessarily going to help someone who doesn't already know what it is.
Your best link for that search, BTW, is the Wikipedia entry four links down, and that's only because Wikipedia is specifically written for laymen. If PageRank had put the Wikipedia entry two or three positions farther down, then there wouldn't have been any results for the layperson on the first page of results.
Typically, the best answer to the lay question, (e.g. "What's that?") isn't a Google search, it's a custom response by someone who knows about it. And if you're not willing to write that response, don't waste time--both yours and the questioner's--telling them to Google it. It's not your responsibility to make sure they don't ask that type of question; Your responses alone won't prevent that.
Right now, they only have a boolean interface, where they know if you're thinking hard or if you're not. They can translate that boolean signal however they want.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when they start building interfaces that differentiate between different classes of thought, such as speech, motor activity, math and emotion. I predict those interfaces would require someone of a significant degree of mental self-control.
That would probably require a shift in how we think. I tend to think in symbols/words, not in letters. There would still be a delay from me having to translate words to letter sequences in my head. (Same as typing...Granted, the mental interface would remove a physical limitation.)
Personally, though, I'd find it more interesting to be able to communicate symbols to my computer, rather than letters. Programming would be a much more accessible task if people could actually think about the behaviors they want to see, which would be a far more fundamental shift in user-interface design.
Since 2005, Hitachi has sold a device based on optical topography that monitors brain activity in paralyzed patients so they can answer simple questions - for example, by doing mental calculations to indicate 'yes' or thinking of nothing in particular to indicate 'no.'" I guess Captain Pike got stuck with an old model, dating all the way back to 2005...
Actually that isn't a limitation, it prevents you from imposing limitations on what downstream developers can do with the code. Making it a limitation. But not necessarily a bad one.
New Coke was intended to have a different taste from what eventually became known as Coke Classic. However, the sweetener change was supposed to go largely unnoticed.
That happened in 1985. My guess is that in 27 years, people won't know the difference between the old and new versions of this film, without looking at digitized copies of original photographs.
The human senses are far more sensitive than people realize. New Coke didn't fool me. Just curious, did you notice the switch from sugar to high-fructose corn syrup across their entire product line?
Reading their platform, I came to the conclusion that they aren't just nuts, they're delusional. They'd be funny if they hadn't controlled an entire continent at one point.
Several of their planks are inconsistent with strict interpretations of each other. Perhaps that's why they want to have laws written in "plain English", so they can get away with the ambiguities.
The company has thousands of shareholders and hundreds of major investors and thousands of employees who also have a voice The shareholders and investors (Technically, shareholders are investors, but we're not talking about accounting here...) depend on Google to carry its own interests. The point of buying shares in a company is typically to take advantage of that company's good market and management, not to take on an active role in aiding that company. It's just not cost effective to do it that way; the cost of effective lobbying* far exceeds the gain in stock value one might see as a result.
* Writing a letter and making phone calls is not an effective way to influence your representatives. I've written hundreds of letters and made around twenty phone calls to my representatives, and I only know of one time where one of my representative voted in favor of my position. $2,000 from a PAC is more likely to change their vote than a fifty cent letter or a free email and fax. I still write, though, because I have to do something, don't I?
Lobbying is about influencing more than just the representative from your district and the senators from your state. Could I get a meeting with my Representative Pete Hoekstra? Possibly. Could I get a meeting with my Senator Debbie Stabenow? Maybe, if she didn't prefer to ignore her constituents. Could I get a meeting with my Senator Carl Levin? Probably not, he hasn't responded to my letters since the Democrats became the majority.
But even if I were to convince all three that we needed to make law the presence of my product in every household, Levin and Stabenow are only two Senators in one hundred, and Hoekstra is only one Representative in several hundred.
Limiting your influence to those for whom you are a voting constituent won't get you very far. That's why corporations have lobbyists.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they giving him a share of the overall revenues (unlikely), or a percentage of adclicks on his videos? (Which seems more likely, despite the oddity of wanting to be paid for someone clicking away from your content...)
Spyware, adware and viruses all cause issues for many of our customers, sure. Probably the frustrating part is that maybe one in fifty of them even have a product key we can use to legally reinstall with. The best we can do for them is install AVG and Spybot, and possibly use the Repair feature of an XP disc.
I would argue that, in this scenario, the heat generated by the electric current is the instigator for both the bang and the flash. The bang doesn't arise from the incandescence, but from the increased air pressure derived from the heat. The incandescence also derives itself from the heat.
:-)
We're not talking about a chain of events, but a tree. The pressure increase and incandescence are independently caused by the heat. One doesn't cause the other, they're both symptoms of the same underlying phenomenon.
But enough nitpicking. There's plenty of other interesting conversation attached to this article.
Of course, now we're talking about predicting an event based on timely evidence strongly correlated to its occasion.
Their laboratory is the sky itself, and the telescopes they use. One of your posts talks about absorption lines. If you're going to make arguments based on absorption lines of stars, then you are implicitly accepting the same laboratory astrophysicists use, because you're accepting the same data astrophysicists use.
Now, it sounds like some of you are actively taking your theories and looking for relevant data. That's a good thing, just be willing to accept if/when some of your base assumptions turn out to be false. That's something "mainstream" science has had to deal with since the days when alchemists (Then "mainstream" scientists) believed that there four elements, two of which were different kinds of bile.
Take a look at the scientific process...it was described millennia ago, and has served up some kick-ass results. It doesn't really sound to me like you have a problem with the scientific process, but with astrophysicists specifically. If that's the case, ask yourself why. Does it have something to do with the fact that their theories can't be proven on a workbench and on a human timescale? How would EU, or any other theory at that scale, be any different? Sometimes, in fact, mediocre people come up with some pretty smart ideas. Never, ever use that as an argument, justification, evidence or anything else. Those statements come across as pity pleas. Most of your complaints center around the perception that EU doesn't get any respect. Those complaints may or may not hold water, but then you turn around and come back with statements like this one.
You can have respect, or you can have pity. You can't have both. Respect gives your arguments life, pity leads people to ignore you.
If fusion occurs where and how your sources says it is, it should be a simple matter to perform a laboratory-condition demonstration of this effect. If you can demonstrate fusion without the temperatures found at the center of the sun, I might be less disinclined to believe the EU concept.
Don't tell me none of the labs will touch it, though. At the very least, The EU folks should be capable of annoying "mainstream" scientists enough that some mainstream scientist would perform the experiment. Quantum mechanics annoyed Einstein and other physicists sufficiently that they came up with a thought experiment intended to discredit QM.
If such a thought experiment can be turned in favor of QM because of QM's merit (see a Slashdot article from last week or the week before about "spooky action at a distance"), then surely, if EU has merit, experiments intended to disprove EU can be turned in EU's favor.
Come back when that happens. If it already has happened, provide links to and/or names of actual papers, not more sites that describe the theory in layman's terms. Basing arguments on layman's terminology is disingenuous; An analogy can never be more true than the evidence.
Often, this is because a certain art is required to figure out an effective set of keywords to get decent results (I frequently have to try three or four different keyword combinations and orders to get good results), but even for CSS, as per your example, it's not necessarily helpful for those "not in the know."
Your link, w3schools, is great for someone who already knows something about graphics design, or at least knows what it is. It wouldn't be helpful at all to, say, my gamer cousin who spends most of his time on BF2 and WoW, or my grandmother who only uses the Internet to stay in contact with family members across the country.
If you were to argue that w3schools isn't intended for them, then you're necessarily demonstrating my point that googling for something, e.g. "CSS", isn't necessarily going to help someone who doesn't already know what it is.
Your best link for that search, BTW, is the Wikipedia entry four links down, and that's only because Wikipedia is specifically written for laymen. If PageRank had put the Wikipedia entry two or three positions farther down, then there wouldn't have been any results for the layperson on the first page of results.
Typically, the best answer to the lay question, (e.g. "What's that?") isn't a Google search, it's a custom response by someone who knows about it. And if you're not willing to write that response, don't waste time--both yours and the questioner's--telling them to Google it. It's not your responsibility to make sure they don't ask that type of question; Your responses alone won't prevent that.
Are ya interested in D&D?
Right now, they only have a boolean interface, where they know if you're thinking hard or if you're not. They can translate that boolean signal however they want.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when they start building interfaces that differentiate between different classes of thought, such as speech, motor activity, math and emotion. I predict those interfaces would require someone of a significant degree of mental self-control.
That would probably require a shift in how we think. I tend to think in symbols/words, not in letters. There would still be a delay from me having to translate words to letter sequences in my head. (Same as typing...Granted, the mental interface would remove a physical limitation.)
Personally, though, I'd find it more interesting to be able to communicate symbols to my computer, rather than letters. Programming would be a much more accessible task if people could actually think about the behaviors they want to see, which would be a far more fundamental shift in user-interface design.
Sounds like a "system update" to me...
I wasn't running NoScript on that box, so that wasn't the issue.
New Coke was intended to have a different taste from what eventually became known as Coke Classic. However, the sweetener change was supposed to go largely unnoticed.
That happened in 1985. My guess is that in 27 years, people won't know the difference between the old and new versions of this film, without looking at digitized copies of original photographs.
Their CSS failed to load for me. If nothing else, it's a nice demonstration on how CSS can fail gracefully...
Actually, I have done some ground-pounding for a PAC involved with my local elections.
Reading their platform, I came to the conclusion that they aren't just nuts, they're delusional. They'd be funny if they hadn't controlled an entire continent at one point.
Several of their planks are inconsistent with strict interpretations of each other. Perhaps that's why they want to have laws written in "plain English", so they can get away with the ambiguities.
* Writing a letter and making phone calls is not an effective way to influence your representatives. I've written hundreds of letters and made around twenty phone calls to my representatives, and I only know of one time where one of my representative voted in favor of my position. $2,000 from a PAC is more likely to change their vote than a fifty cent letter or a free email and fax. I still write, though, because I have to do something, don't I?
Lobbying is about influencing more than just the representative from your district and the senators from your state. Could I get a meeting with my Representative Pete Hoekstra? Possibly. Could I get a meeting with my Senator Debbie Stabenow? Maybe, if she didn't prefer to ignore her constituents. Could I get a meeting with my Senator Carl Levin? Probably not, he hasn't responded to my letters since the Democrats became the majority.
But even if I were to convince all three that we needed to make law the presence of my product in every household, Levin and Stabenow are only two Senators in one hundred, and Hoekstra is only one Representative in several hundred.
Limiting your influence to those for whom you are a voting constituent won't get you very far. That's why corporations have lobbyists.
Rhesus monkey stem cells may not be entirely compatible with human nuclei, so this by no means brings the human stem cell debate closer to an end.
Cell workings differ slightly between species. Different proteins may be present, etc.