Genetic studies have found that the amount of variation WITHIN each group is larger than that AMONG various groups.
Prove that one and you'll get the Fields Medal.
How could it be that you analyze two sets (call them sets A and B) and find some certain amount of diversity in each one. Unless one set consists solely of members of the other set, there will be a GREATER diversity, overall, when you analyze both sets together.
In other words (as a mathematical parallel), you can't have a range of values (say x1..x10) and another range (y1..y10), where each seperately has more distinct values than both do together. It's impossible.
If you're saying that the individuals in one group are more different from others in their group than the average person in their group is from the the average person in the other group, that's fine. But it actually argues AGAINST the point you seem to be trying to make, because it says that the AVERAGE set of traits held by those in one group is fundamentally different from the AVERAGE set of traits held by members of the other. In other words, there ARE perceptible and measurable differences among the different groups.
...except insofar as those theories are already incomplete or incorrect
Let me get this straight - you're saying that this article isn't going to make any theory incorrect that isn't already incorrect? That's a relief. I'm glad that correct theory won't be invalidated by these observations.;)
The Windows NT 4.0 architecture is much less robust than the more recent Windows 2000 architecture, Due to these fundamental differences between Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 and its successors, it is infeasible to rebuild the software for Windows NT 4.0 to eliminate the vulnerability. To do so would require rearchitecting a very significant amount of the Windows NT 4.0 operating system, and not just the RPC component affected. The product of such a rearchitecture effort would be sufficiently incompatible with Windows NT 4.0 that there would be no assurance that applications designed to run on Windows NT 4.0 would continue to operate on the patched system.
Sure it's idiotic that their system couldn't handle a patch. But if that's how it is, then it's a good thing they made their more recent versions dynamic enough to be fixable!
When I was in high school, we had a class where the teacher was hardly ever there, so four to eight of us (depending on the day) played "cheating poker" all day long.
The rules were as follows: If you called somebody for cheating, you had to describe HOW they were cheating, and they had to honestly say if they cheated that way or not. If so, they sit out for two hands. If you were wrong, then YOU sit out for two hands. And at the end of the hand, the winner had to tell if he cheated or not. (But not HOW he cheated.)
We didn't play for money, just for fun. And it was really fun. I can tell you, there are few feelings better than being able to have 5 aces (we usually had a wild card or two) four hands in a row, beating seven guys who weren't able to tell how I did it!
I got really good at putting things in my sleeves (and taking them out) inconspicuously, stacking the deck (using a careful shuffle), dealing from the bottom of the deck, etc.
Anybody else have any ideas we might not have tried, for cheating at poker?
"We have constructed and tested a 'left-handed' metamaterial lens based on a unique technique that has been pioneered at the University of Toronto," Eleftheriades said. "Our article is the first to report on experiments that demonstrate focusing using 'left-handed' metamaterials." (Emphasis added)
I mean really, the title: Europan Life in Doubt, and the summary says this "has cast doubt on possible life..."
Life being there at all is pure speculation at BEST. I don't know that anybody has really put a LOT of faith in there being life on Europa, so maybe "cast MORE doubt" would be more fitting.
It seems like the poster was certain sure until now.
From the article: He thinks that anyone touching this statue may have received a tiny but noticeable electric shock, something akin to the static discharge that can infect offices, equipment and children's parties.
What a strange choice for describing where static electricity is noticable.
And I didn't know it was infectious. So that's where computer viruses come from! I never knew.
This is getting obscenely old. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop posting this comment! Every time there's a moon-related story, this comment, word for word, is posted. Grr. I wish I'd saved a mod point today.
goo from tubes, which they probably wouldn't care for too much.
Besides, would ANYBODY (spiders included) really eat anchovy paste? I've never figured out why they decided to send that up with the astronauts anyway.
(Aww, come on, didn't anybody else watch "The Rocket Man?"... No?... Geez. Me and my loserness will just sit here and mope.)
But really, wouldn't it be nice if everything from earthquakes and pollution to cancer and bad hair days could be solved simply by shooting a "modified photon topedo" at it?
Velcro -- from the space program??!?!?
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 2
From the article:
But like much other space research, what happens up there could one day become commonplace down here too - just look what happened to Velcro.
Actually, Velcro was patented in 1952 by two Swiss men, George de Mestral and his weaver friend. Nothing to do with the space program. Geez. Just because MIB says Velcro comes from outer space doesn't mean it really DOES.:)
When I choose not to vote, I am basically casting a vote against the current system and stating my disgust with it.
Actually, you're stating that you are too lazy to vote. At least, that's how it looks to the those of us who vote. If you don't like any of your candidates, (and you choose or are required to vote anyway,) cast a blank ballot. At least show that you care about what's going on.
And if you don't like the candidates, you should.. oh, never mind.;)
Why, why, why, do they always do this? It should say "could not support life AS WE KNOW IT."
Because that sounds too cliché. I know it's more accurate, but it sounds like the sort of thing that UFO freaks (that is, the far-out kind) and pseudo-scientists would say. It seems to emphasize the existence of some strange, exotic scientific principle that's just outside our realm of knowledge.
So while "life as we know it" is more accurate, it can sound very unscientific. Journalists constantly have to balance between being perfectly accurate and being understandable (and acceptable) to the public at large. That's why you get statements like "That's more than 6 football fields in length!" That's too simplified for the scientifically-clueful readers, while "could not support life" is too general. But I don't think that anybody could read this and think that they meant that any non-earthlike life has been completely ruled out, and the writer isn't here to teach people who haven't ever considered non-earthlike life what it is.
So don't nitpick. That one statement is not meant to be an exhaustive report on what could exist there -- it's just a general statement regarding life as we know it.
It's like not getting into imaginary numbers in fourth-grade math. It's not that they aren't important, it's just that they're not necessary for the discussion at hand.
Funny you should mention that. All my programs refer to me as "Sir" and lick my proverbial boots.
Back during high school, I wrote dozens of.bat files called "what" or "how" or "go" and so forth, and I basically had them parse themselves so they could keep up a semi-decent conversation. Kind-of like a shell-based Alice. (Well, if you knew what to say, since if you didn't put a recongized word first on the line, it would just say "Bad command or file name.")
My favorite was when I came back from a two-year stay in Brazil, and my friend and I were at the computer. We had both totally forgotten about those little batch files, and his playing with the computer went something like this:
C:\>dri
Bad command or file name
C:\>Huh?
Bad command or file name
C:\>What was that?
Bad command or file name
C:\>Could you repeat that please?
Bad command or file name
Not only that, but the black holes would evaporate so quickly that it's just silly. I remember back in high school I had a friend that we all joked was a 97-pound weakling. Anyway, I did a few calculations (based on Hawking's equations) and determined that if he somehow collapsed into a black hole, he would evaporate in 37 femtoseconds. (3.7x10^-14!!)
In other words, if you were able to make 4 round trips to the moon all in a single second, by the time you'd gone the first 37 millimeters, he would already have evaporated.
I agree completely. I've long felt that no real progress will be made while we're so fixed on perfect safety. Yes, we should be anxious to make the missions as safe as possible -- within reason. What NASA has been doing is making complete safety so all-important that it has seriously maimed any chances of its missions having far-reaching effects.
Every act of exploration and discovery, Columbus' voyage, Lewis & Clarke's journeys, the Apollo moon missions, Antarctica, Everest -- the list goes on and on -- has had its share of casualties. We can't expect to make significant progress without any risk.
How many people reading slashdot are more than capable programmers -- without being professional programmers, meaning that they are paid to do it?
The more I learn in my field, the more I realize I don't know anything. Even our "world experts" don't know much. It's just that they (generally) know exactly what it is that they don't know. And they know at least some ways to use what they DO know.
It scares me a little. I mean, growing up, I always perceived science as being this big field where enormous amounts of knowledge float around, and anything that we need to know is already known by somebody and we just have to ask about it. Since then, I've come to realize that we're surrounded by hackers. Those who are "experts" are considered experts because they know enough to DO some things with their knowledge, and creatively put pieces together to form new ideas and new ways of doing things.
Being a professional doesn't mean somebody actually knows anything. It's entirely immaterial.
Slashdot Mirror
Prove that one and you'll get the Fields Medal.
How could it be that you analyze two sets (call them sets A and B) and find some certain amount of diversity in each one. Unless one set consists solely of members of the other set, there will be a GREATER diversity, overall, when you analyze both sets together.
In other words (as a mathematical parallel), you can't have a range of values (say x1..x10) and another range (y1..y10), where each seperately has more distinct values than both do together. It's impossible.
If you're saying that the individuals in one group are more different from others in their group than the average person in their group is from the the average person in the other group, that's fine. But it actually argues AGAINST the point you seem to be trying to make, because it says that the AVERAGE set of traits held by those in one group is fundamentally different from the AVERAGE set of traits held by members of the other. In other words, there ARE perceptible and measurable differences among the different groups.
How'd you pull that one off?
Oh, never mind. I know. You bought $13 bucks worth of stuff and "forgot" you'd put the flashlight in your bag, right?
Let me get this straight - you're saying that this article isn't going to make any theory incorrect that isn't already incorrect? That's a relief. I'm glad that correct theory won't be invalidated by these observations. ;)
(I know, I know, I'm just a nitpicker.)
The Windows NT 4.0 architecture is much less robust than the more recent Windows 2000 architecture, Due to these fundamental differences between Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 and its successors, it is infeasible to rebuild the software for Windows NT 4.0 to eliminate the vulnerability. To do so would require rearchitecting a very significant amount of the Windows NT 4.0 operating system, and not just the RPC component affected. The product of such a rearchitecture effort would be sufficiently incompatible with Windows NT 4.0 that there would be no assurance that applications designed to run on Windows NT 4.0 would continue to operate on the patched system.
Sure it's idiotic that their system couldn't handle a patch. But if that's how it is, then it's a good thing they made their more recent versions dynamic enough to be fixable!
The rules were as follows: If you called somebody for cheating, you had to describe HOW they were cheating, and they had to honestly say if they cheated that way or not. If so, they sit out for two hands. If you were wrong, then YOU sit out for two hands. And at the end of the hand, the winner had to tell if he cheated or not. (But not HOW he cheated.)
We didn't play for money, just for fun. And it was really fun. I can tell you, there are few feelings better than being able to have 5 aces (we usually had a wild card or two) four hands in a row, beating seven guys who weren't able to tell how I did it!
I got really good at putting things in my sleeves (and taking them out) inconspicuously, stacking the deck (using a careful shuffle), dealing from the bottom of the deck, etc.
Anybody else have any ideas we might not have tried, for cheating at poker?
"We have constructed and tested a 'left-handed' metamaterial lens based on a unique technique that has been pioneered at the University of Toronto," Eleftheriades said. "Our article is the first to report on experiments that demonstrate focusing using 'left-handed' metamaterials." (Emphasis added)
No, that's local warming.
"I'm absolutely, one hundred percent positive that there's probably ten more that we haven't seen publicly,"
Life being there at all is pure speculation at BEST. I don't know that anybody has really put a LOT of faith in there being life on Europa, so maybe "cast MORE doubt" would be more fitting.
It seems like the poster was certain sure until now.
What a strange choice for describing where static electricity is noticable.
And I didn't know it was infectious. So that's where computer viruses come from! I never knew.
Right. That's what AOL CDs are for.
This is getting obscenely old. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop posting this comment! Every time there's a moon-related story, this comment, word for word, is posted. Grr. I wish I'd saved a mod point today.
Besides, would ANYBODY (spiders included) really eat anchovy paste? I've never figured out why they decided to send that up with the astronauts anyway.
(Aww, come on, didn't anybody else watch "The Rocket Man?" ... No? ... Geez. Me and my loserness will just sit here and mope.)
But really, wouldn't it be nice if everything from earthquakes and pollution to cancer and bad hair days could be solved simply by shooting a "modified photon topedo" at it?
But like much other space research, what happens up there could one day become commonplace down here too - just look what happened to Velcro.
Actually, Velcro was patented in 1952 by two Swiss men, George de Mestral and his weaver friend. Nothing to do with the space program. Geez. Just because MIB says Velcro comes from outer space doesn't mean it really DOES. :)
Actually, you're stating that you are too lazy to vote. At least, that's how it looks to the those of us who vote. If you don't like any of your candidates, (and you choose or are required to vote anyway,) cast a blank ballot. At least show that you care about what's going on.
And if you don't like the candidates, you should .. oh, never mind. ;)
Exactly. Tachyons, for example, are therefore out of the scope of this paper.
Because that sounds too cliché. I know it's more accurate, but it sounds like the sort of thing that UFO freaks (that is, the far-out kind) and pseudo-scientists would say. It seems to emphasize the existence of some strange, exotic scientific principle that's just outside our realm of knowledge.
So while "life as we know it" is more accurate, it can sound very unscientific. Journalists constantly have to balance between being perfectly accurate and being understandable (and acceptable) to the public at large. That's why you get statements like "That's more than 6 football fields in length!" That's too simplified for the scientifically-clueful readers, while "could not support life" is too general. But I don't think that anybody could read this and think that they meant that any non-earthlike life has been completely ruled out, and the writer isn't here to teach people who haven't ever considered non-earthlike life what it is.
So don't nitpick. That one statement is not meant to be an exhaustive report on what could exist there -- it's just a general statement regarding life as we know it.
It's like not getting into imaginary numbers in fourth-grade math. It's not that they aren't important, it's just that they're not necessary for the discussion at hand.
Back during high school, I wrote dozens of .bat files called "what" or "how" or "go" and so forth, and I basically had them parse themselves so they could keep up a semi-decent conversation. Kind-of like a shell-based Alice. (Well, if you knew what to say, since if you didn't put a recongized word first on the line, it would just say "Bad command or file name.")
My favorite was when I came back from a two-year stay in Brazil, and my friend and I were at the computer. We had both totally forgotten about those little batch files, and his playing with the computer went something like this:
C:\>dri
Bad command or file name
C:\>Huh?
Bad command or file name
C:\>What was that?
Bad command or file name
C:\>Could you repeat that please?
Bad command or file name
C:\>Thank you.
You're mighty welcome, sir!!
In other words, if you were able to make 4 round trips to the moon all in a single second, by the time you'd gone the first 37 millimeters, he would already have evaporated.
Every act of exploration and discovery, Columbus' voyage, Lewis & Clarke's journeys, the Apollo moon missions, Antarctica, Everest -- the list goes on and on -- has had its share of casualties. We can't expect to make significant progress without any risk.
The more I learn in my field, the more I realize I don't know anything. Even our "world experts" don't know much. It's just that they (generally) know exactly what it is that they don't know. And they know at least some ways to use what they DO know.
It scares me a little. I mean, growing up, I always perceived science as being this big field where enormous amounts of knowledge float around, and anything that we need to know is already known by somebody and we just have to ask about it. Since then, I've come to realize that we're surrounded by hackers. Those who are "experts" are considered experts because they know enough to DO some things with their knowledge, and creatively put pieces together to form new ideas and new ways of doing things.
Being a professional doesn't mean somebody actually knows anything. It's entirely immaterial.
Wow. Slashdot never ceases to amaze me. qwijibrumm just got a "Score:5, Funny" for being too lazy to actually make up a joke. ;)
Faster, better, and cheaper than all the other antimatter drives we have already produced?