As a recent owner of a PS3, there are two changes that I'd love to see implemented.
First, when running Folding@Home as a screensaver on the PS3, autoplay of CD's is disabled. One has to manually quit Folding@Home, by navigating the visual menus, just to allow a CD to play. It's really dumb that I should have to turn on my TV just to play a CD. (And I'd like to still keep Folding@Home running as a screensaver, when the console isn't busy.)
Second, and considerably more problematic, is that video switching requires the video menus, which leads to a catch-22. In my case, I have my PS3 hooked up to an LCD TV as well as a front projector; through HDMI and component video, respectively. The PS3 only outputs one of these formats at a time, and paradoxically, requires the video menus to switch between them. So if I watch a movie at night on the projector, then need to switch back to HDMI the next day, I'm screwed; the projector is not bright enough to navigate the menu options in daylight, not to mention that repeatedly switching it on and off kills bulb life. A video-switching toggle that doesn't require visual menus would make my PS3 experience MUCH more pleasant. </gripe>
Slight correction: due to the lower Martian gravity, the habitat would have to be about 30 meters underground to equalize one atmosphere of pressure. (Or one could use lower total pressure with a higher relative percentage of oxygen.)
Better solution: Build the habitat 10 meters undergound, pressurized to 1 atmosphere, with a long U-shaped tunnel filled with water, connecting the floor of the habitat to the planet's surface! (Think of the moon pool in The Abyss.) The astronauts can then SWIM back and forth between the surface and the habitat, eliminating the need for a complicated airlock, and ameliorating the dust concerns; it's much easier to get dust off in water than in air. (You'd obviously need to cover and insulate the surface exit when not in use, to prevent the water from freezing/sublimating, but that should be trivial.)
This reminds me of the amazing (and sobering) story of Dave Shaw, who perished in a deep freshwater cavern trying to recover the body of a fellow diver. Quite a read, if you have 20 minutes.
I freedive recreationally, a sport that involves extended periods of breath-holding. (I've trained myself to hold my breath for over five minutes.) It would be interesting to know to what extent these reperfusion effects apply to intentional periods of oxygen-deprivation without losing consciousness.
One of my favorites: "... To summarize, the people who want to lead the government, are, by virtue of wanting to lead, the least qualified to do so. To summarize the summary: people are a problem."
Sounds to me like he's compressing his own output. I just knew he could transcend the laws of nature.
Every consumer laptop comes with a thick book stating that each and every component may catch fire, explode, fail to work, cause the end of the world, kill your dog, or any number of other things
The underwater housing for my digital camera warns that improper use can lead to risk of fire. (I had to read it twice.)
It also warns that the housing should not be used as a personal flotation device... I'd like to see the incidents that led to these disclaimers.
The fault in your analogy is that, while statistics can't tell you what the next run of cards will be, gamblers and mathematicians do use statistics to win over time.
Well, if we were living in a successive sequence of multiple universes, then knowing the statistics (e.g., knowing the set of 10^500 possible universes that string theory predicts) would come in handy indeed. E.g., if we were to pop our heads in on a thousand random universes in a row, we would soon discover whether string theory is true or not. However, given that we can only observe one universe (our own), Occam's Razor states that the simplest theory that accurately describes it is likely the correct one. The sticking point is that such a simple theory may also describe other possible types of universes. For instance, if dealt 30 playing cards, you could extrapolate a reasonable assumption about the contents of the entire deck (even if you had never seen a deck of playing cards before), and thus form a reasonable theory about the other 10^15 possible hands, but your entire-deck theory may not make any predictions that are falsifiable by the particular 30-card hand you hold. That doesn't make the theory untrue or non-useful.
The criticism in the article is that string theory, lacking testable predictive power, has no practical payoff like that, so it's not science.
On the flip side, the problem with every other cosmological theory (starting with Newton's gravitation, then Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics) is that they make predictions that are actively wrong, when extended into each others' domain. The advantage of String Theory is that it bounds the problem from the other direction, the first time this has been achieved. String theory is the first scientific explanation of the universe that COULD be true (so far as we know), in the sense that relativity or quantum mechanics cannot be. Ironically, it is NOT true that string theory makes no falsifiable predictions; it's just that none of its predictions HAVE been falsified, because they are all in accord with what we already observe about our universe. (If gravity were to reverse itself tomorrow and objects start falling upward, this would undoubtedly falsify string theory.)
To think about it another way, if string theory had been developed (in a comprehensible form) 100 years ago, it would have had great success in terms of its predictive power. (For example, it may predict that "something like quantum mechanics" would soon be observed.) It's just that the current class of "cosmological observations that have not been measured yet, but will be soon" is fairly small, and there's no guarantee that the "true" theory of the universe (or any reasonably general physical theory, for that matter) will actually make falsifiable predictions regarding this limited set of observations. That shouldn't stop us from searching of course, and it does remain to find theories that tighten the bound between relativity/QM (nearly true but demonstrably imperfect theories) and string theory (possibly correct but overly general theories), but string theory's accomplishment of bounding the cosmological problem from the other side shouldn't be underestimated.
In what possible world would statistical methods have emerged from studying a sample of size one?
For a sample as complex as our universe, there's actually quite a lot that can be derived from it. The observable structure of our universe (in terms of the rules that govern it) contains a tremendous amount of information, enough to allow us to make very sophisticated guesses about the larger framework (such as string theory) that produced/generated/created it.
Suppose that instead of physics we're talking biology, and our "one sample" is a bunny rabbit. A bunny rabbit is complicated enough that with sufficient observation, the general principles of DNA, genetics, etc. could meaningfully be worked out from it, based on an "Occam's Razor" -style approach of looking for a consistent theoretical framework into which it fits. (Creationism or Intelligent Design don't qualify, for obvious reasons.) Similarly, if I give a mathematician the "one sample" of the number 2305843009213693951, it shouldn't take too long to figure out that the organizing structure behind it is that it belongs to the set of Mersenne primes. Our universe is much more like the bunny rabbit or a gigantic Mersenne prime, than (say) a coin flipped heads or tails, so extrapolating from the "one sample" is not as farfetched as it appears. Or do you still disagree?
The statement that string theory makes no testable predictions does not necessarily limit its usefulness. As I understand it, the mathematics behind quantum theory and relativity are irreconcilable, in that they lead to infinities and singularities when extended into each others' domain. The brilliance of string theory is that it provides a general framework that encompasses both quantum theory and relativity, and thus it may be a superset of the "true" framework of the universe, if not the most concise description. The idea that string theory is "bad science" only because our universe may be one of 10^500 possible configurations (and string theory can't predict which one it is) is like saying that statistics is bad science because it can't predict the exact run of cards I'll have at my next poker game. The development a framework within which our observed universe is possible at all (which cannot be said of relativity or quantum theory) is a tremendous achievement in itself.
Think of it this way. Many theorists predict that our universe may be one of many (e.g., in a much larger "multiverse"), and these universes are not all expected to be identical. Therefore, the variations between them represent quantities that are not exactly "predictable" by any theory, and the best we can hope for is a meta-theory that describes all possible universes, and says that ours is one of them. The earth is not the center of the universe; the prediction of string theory may simply be that our universe is not the center of the universe, so to speak.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like the problem here might be the helplessness of artificial intelligence in the face of natural stupidity.
Douglas Adams invented a word for this:
ABOYNE (vb.) To beat an expert at a game of skill by playing so appallingly that none of his clever tactics or strategies are of any use to him.
As a recent owner of a PS3, there are two changes that I'd love to see implemented. First, when running Folding@Home as a screensaver on the PS3, autoplay of CD's is disabled. One has to manually quit Folding@Home, by navigating the visual menus, just to allow a CD to play. It's really dumb that I should have to turn on my TV just to play a CD. (And I'd like to still keep Folding@Home running as a screensaver, when the console isn't busy.)
Second, and considerably more problematic, is that video switching requires the video menus, which leads to a catch-22. In my case, I have my PS3 hooked up to an LCD TV as well as a front projector; through HDMI and component video, respectively. The PS3 only outputs one of these formats at a time, and paradoxically, requires the video menus to switch between them. So if I watch a movie at night on the projector, then need to switch back to HDMI the next day, I'm screwed; the projector is not bright enough to navigate the menu options in daylight, not to mention that repeatedly switching it on and off kills bulb life. A video-switching toggle that doesn't require visual menus would make my PS3 experience MUCH more pleasant. </gripe>
Slight correction: due to the lower Martian gravity, the habitat would have to be about 30 meters underground to equalize one atmosphere of pressure. (Or one could use lower total pressure with a higher relative percentage of oxygen.)
Better solution: Build the habitat 10 meters undergound, pressurized to 1 atmosphere, with a long U-shaped tunnel filled with water, connecting the floor of the habitat to the planet's surface! (Think of the moon pool in The Abyss.) The astronauts can then SWIM back and forth between the surface and the habitat, eliminating the need for a complicated airlock, and ameliorating the dust concerns; it's much easier to get dust off in water than in air. (You'd obviously need to cover and insulate the surface exit when not in use, to prevent the water from freezing/sublimating, but that should be trivial.)
640 columns ought to be enough for anybody.
It could potentially wipe out life on Earth, but its pointed in the wrong direction...hopefully.
:)
Ahem, I would humbly opine that it is pointed in the RIGHT direction...
This reminds me of the amazing (and sobering) story of Dave Shaw, who perished in a deep freshwater cavern trying to recover the body of a fellow diver. Quite a read, if you have 20 minutes.
And here's the spoof that that spoof spoofed:
Kentucky Fried Movie - Zinc Oxide
During the day horses pumped water to a lake up the hill side.
Live Green, Go Yellow... (?)
I freedive recreationally, a sport that involves extended periods of breath-holding. (I've trained myself to hold my breath for over five minutes.) It would be interesting to know to what extent these reperfusion effects apply to intentional periods of oxygen-deprivation without losing consciousness.
Weird how 3 of the best American chocolate companies are in the Bay Area... Ghiradelli, Guittard, and my personal favorite, Scharffen Berger
My personal favorite American chocolatier is Recchiuti, which is also based in San Francisco. Also, here's a good ranking of American chocolate companies. I find that Richart's 49-flavor Petits Richart collection is particularly tasty.
"After dinner mint, sir?"
"Oh, I couldn't eat another bite..."
One of my favorites: "... To summarize, the people who want to lead the government, are, by virtue of wanting to lead, the least qualified to do so. To summarize the summary: people are a problem."
Sounds to me like he's compressing his own output. I just knew he could transcend the laws of nature.
Modern network devices have to handle traffic in huge volumes at low latencies
HIGH latencies. Networks have HIGH latencies. Come on now, editors.
Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly then[sic] Jessica Alba.
It' a pretty sad statement to say that an actress can't even decently play an INVISIBLE role.
I gave a live demonstration of personal invisibility in high school physics class. I simply didn't show up that day. I got an A++. It was brilliant.
"Microsoft Brian Wash"
Any relation to Microsoft Bob?
Personally, I subscribe to the NECCO theory, which states that supermassive objects tend to collapse down into thin crispy wafers.
Weeeeeee, I'm next!
So you're saying Internet Explorer is really a MECO?
Every consumer laptop comes with a thick book stating that each and every component may catch fire, explode, fail to work, cause the end of the world, kill your dog, or any number of other things
The underwater housing for my digital camera warns that improper use can lead to risk of fire. (I had to read it twice.)
It also warns that the housing should not be used as a personal flotation device... I'd like to see the incidents that led to these disclaimers.
the Brownouts.
The fault in your analogy is that, while statistics can't tell you what the next run of cards will be, gamblers and mathematicians do use statistics to win over time.
Well, if we were living in a successive sequence of multiple universes, then knowing the statistics (e.g., knowing the set of 10^500 possible universes that string theory predicts) would come in handy indeed. E.g., if we were to pop our heads in on a thousand random universes in a row, we would soon discover whether string theory is true or not. However, given that we can only observe one universe (our own), Occam's Razor states that the simplest theory that accurately describes it is likely the correct one. The sticking point is that such a simple theory may also describe other possible types of universes. For instance, if dealt 30 playing cards, you could extrapolate a reasonable assumption about the contents of the entire deck (even if you had never seen a deck of playing cards before), and thus form a reasonable theory about the other 10^15 possible hands, but your entire-deck theory may not make any predictions that are falsifiable by the particular 30-card hand you hold. That doesn't make the theory untrue or non-useful.
The criticism in the article is that string theory, lacking testable predictive power, has no practical payoff like that, so it's not science.
On the flip side, the problem with every other cosmological theory (starting with Newton's gravitation, then Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics) is that they make predictions that are actively wrong, when extended into each others' domain. The advantage of String Theory is that it bounds the problem from the other direction, the first time this has been achieved. String theory is the first scientific explanation of the universe that COULD be true (so far as we know), in the sense that relativity or quantum mechanics cannot be. Ironically, it is NOT true that string theory makes no falsifiable predictions; it's just that none of its predictions HAVE been falsified, because they are all in accord with what we already observe about our universe. (If gravity were to reverse itself tomorrow and objects start falling upward, this would undoubtedly falsify string theory.)
To think about it another way, if string theory had been developed (in a comprehensible form) 100 years ago, it would have had great success in terms of its predictive power. (For example, it may predict that "something like quantum mechanics" would soon be observed.) It's just that the current class of "cosmological observations that have not been measured yet, but will be soon" is fairly small, and there's no guarantee that the "true" theory of the universe (or any reasonably general physical theory, for that matter) will actually make falsifiable predictions regarding this limited set of observations. That shouldn't stop us from searching of course, and it does remain to find theories that tighten the bound between relativity/QM (nearly true but demonstrably imperfect theories) and string theory (possibly correct but overly general theories), but string theory's accomplishment of bounding the cosmological problem from the other side shouldn't be underestimated.
In what possible world would statistical methods have emerged from studying a sample of size one?
For a sample as complex as our universe, there's actually quite a lot that can be derived from it. The observable structure of our universe (in terms of the rules that govern it) contains a tremendous amount of information, enough to allow us to make very sophisticated guesses about the larger framework (such as string theory) that produced/generated/created it.
Suppose that instead of physics we're talking biology, and our "one sample" is a bunny rabbit. A bunny rabbit is complicated enough that with sufficient observation, the general principles of DNA, genetics, etc. could meaningfully be worked out from it, based on an "Occam's Razor" -style approach of looking for a consistent theoretical framework into which it fits. (Creationism or Intelligent Design don't qualify, for obvious reasons.) Similarly, if I give a mathematician the "one sample" of the number 2305843009213693951, it shouldn't take too long to figure out that the organizing structure behind it is that it belongs to the set of Mersenne primes. Our universe is much more like the bunny rabbit or a gigantic Mersenne prime, than (say) a coin flipped heads or tails, so extrapolating from the "one sample" is not as farfetched as it appears. Or do you still disagree?
The statement that string theory makes no testable predictions does not necessarily limit its usefulness. As I understand it, the mathematics behind quantum theory and relativity are irreconcilable, in that they lead to infinities and singularities when extended into each others' domain. The brilliance of string theory is that it provides a general framework that encompasses both quantum theory and relativity, and thus it may be a superset of the "true" framework of the universe, if not the most concise description. The idea that string theory is "bad science" only because our universe may be one of 10^500 possible configurations (and string theory can't predict which one it is) is like saying that statistics is bad science because it can't predict the exact run of cards I'll have at my next poker game. The development a framework within which our observed universe is possible at all (which cannot be said of relativity or quantum theory) is a tremendous achievement in itself.
Think of it this way. Many theorists predict that our universe may be one of many (e.g., in a much larger "multiverse"), and these universes are not all expected to be identical. Therefore, the variations between them represent quantities that are not exactly "predictable" by any theory, and the best we can hope for is a meta-theory that describes all possible universes, and says that ours is one of them. The earth is not the center of the universe; the prediction of string theory may simply be that our universe is not the center of the universe, so to speak.
I have a hydra in my lap, and it ain't a computer.
Don't tell me: Your pants fit you like a glove.