Without intelligent life in the universe there would clearly be no philosophy. However the universe would still have laws of physics. Thus physics cannot be a subset of philosophy because it can exist without it. This might be a change since the 18th/19th century but given our huge improvement in understanding since then I would not regard historical definitions as a particularly accurate guide. Personally I think that the reason science grew out of philosophy is simply because philosophy was the only option available for the scientific mind several hundred years or more ago.
Until very recently, science was called natural philosophy. All the sciences have their origins in philosophy...
What you say is correct. However this does not mean that science is a subset of philosophy. The key difference is that science requires more than thought: it requires a physical universe to observe and test. It may then use philosophy to interpret and infer how that universe works but there is more than just thought involved.
Einstein said that gravity is a linear (not discrete) force.
Actually Newton said that. Einstein said that it was actually a"fictious" force caused by masses bending space-time so that what we think of as a straight line is not actually a straight line. The effect is something similar to standing on the inside of a rotating space station. If you did this and threw a ball into the air it would appear to come back to your hand as if there were a force acting on it. However in reality it moved in a straight line and you followed the arc of a circle and came back to it. (Note: gravity works by bending space time: no rotation is required, but the principle is the same).
The claim here is far more than just gravity being discrete. They are saying that space-time itself is discrete at scales of 10^-16 m (compare this to a nucleus which has a radius of 10^-15 m). However we have probed scales far smaller that this, down to 10^-18 m if my back of envelope calculation is correct - but certainly lower that 10^-16 m. So I am very curious to see how they can explain that there have been no observable phenomena at accelerators given this extremely coarse (relatively speaking) quantum space-time sea.
Unless she downloaded it without being notified upfront of the cost, she ain't going to win this one.
That depends on German and EU law. In the UK contracts are not valid unless the company can demonstrate a clear "meeting of the minds". So click boxes etc. are generally useless in terms of showing you have agreed to bizarre details of a EULA - you really need a signature.
The real news here is that we have a totally new circuit element and heaven only knows where that can take us.
Exactly how is this a fundamentally new circuit element? Most ohmic resistors change their resistance when a current is passed through them because the current causes heating and the heating changes their resistance. Since they take time to cool down they will have a (rather limited) memory too.
Yes this is a very interesting device and vastly more practical in terms of applications for memory but, unless it does something the articles do not mention, calling it a new fundamental circuit component seems wrong because it appears that you can mimic its behaviour using a well insulated piece of wire. Of course the wire is not very useful in terms of applications (outside electric heaters and light bulbs) but nevertheless it is a resistance whose value depends on previous current history.
An interesting link but your second link contains a substantial list of names who do not agree with the majority opinion. I would make a clear distinction between majority and consensus. As a non-expert it concerns me that there is such a long list of apparent experts who disagree with the majority opinion. Looking at my own field you would certainly not be able to find such a list of people who disagreed with the existence of, say, quarks. Perhaps a concensus is forming but it seems premature to say that there is one.
In addition these people are not making crazy-sounding arguments. For example I understood that the CO2-temperature relationship from ice samples now showed that the temperature rose BEFORE the CO2 level rose. I've yet to hear of any explanation as to why it is this way around (from either camp). There also needs to be some explanation of the causes of past sudden drops in temperature e.g. the little ice age in Europe that caused famine, froze the Thames etc. in medieval times. If we cannot explain that, before there was any industrial pollution, then how can we claim to know what is causing the current rise?...and if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?
You are right that the problem is my lack of expertise but producing a plot showing forcings or other model derived data is not convincing unless you can first convince me that you really can model the climate accurately....and given the apparent huge variation in models from different experts that seems unlikely.
In summary I would say that, on a balance of probability, it seems more likely that we are significantly affecting the climate than not. So I would mark it as cause for concern and something we should certain aim to avoid where possible. However the current proposed action is that we need to spend billions and billions of dollars, completely rearrange our economy etc. etc. To argue for that much upheaval you need a rock solid argument not a balance of probability argument, much like you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to prison...and as long as there are a reasonable number of experts making (to the non-expert) logical, reasoned arguments against the majority opinion there will probably always be reasonable doubt, at least for non-experts.
Are you competent to evaluate controversial issues in high-energy physics?
Well yes, I am but that is not really the point. The point is are scientific methods being applied? Although I am high energy physicist and not a climatologist, it should be possible for a climatologist to provide convincing and conclusive evidence that humans are unambiguously the cause of the recent global warming. You have to be an expert to come up with the data and its interpretation but if you cannot explain the resulting evidence to a fellow scientist, even one outside your field, there is something wrong.
The problem with global warming (as I understand it) is that there is conflicting evidence as to the cause. So far I have not heard an expert on either side of the debate come up with convincing arguments to explain the other side's evidence. The conclusion I am therefore forced to reach is that we do not understand why the Earth is warming at the moment. Having had a chance to talk with an expert in a climate related field a couple of weeks ago this was his conclusion too.
So, I would disagree strongly with your '99%' concensus number and, while we should certainly respect and listen to the experts in the field, that does not mean that we cannot question them, especially when there is no concensus.
How long before the first law suit claiming the ad is responsible for whatever driving calamity happened?
Probably not very long if the system really works: "Has this ad just distracted you and caused an accident? Call Deville and associates at 1-800-SUE-LEXUS."
...and they seem to have a hole in their product line between the mini and the Mac Pro
Have a look at the iMac - it sits nicely in the gap between the two. Regarding expandability why do you need PCI slots? I used to think like you - and got a Mac Pro - because I was used to sticking in PCI cards for this and that but now everything is via USB or Firewire. There is no need to add SCSI cards, highspeed ethernet cards etc. unless you have a specialized need e.g. fibrechannel for disk servers, 10Gb ethernet etc. So far I have yet to stick a single PCI card into the machine and would have been far better off saving the money and buying an iMac with an external disk enclosure.
The only people I can imagine that would be interested in such detailed material would be those studying law. As such I imagine the useful lifetime will be rather short, 100 years max, because laws change significantly on such timescales.
No, the "smart" businessman exploits the naive scientist. This is one of the reasons that, were I ever likely to invent something which was patentable, I'd find a businessman I'd trust to figure out how to take advantage of it. It requires a very different skill set from science.
Apparently, they don't have Anti-Lock Breaking in Canada.
That's because we are such nice people we don't have much of a problem with car theft. If you were talking about anti-lock braking though, the best brakes in the world can't do anything for you if the coefficient of friction between your tyre and the road is almost zero.
Since they apparently used OSX Server this is particularly bad. All they needed was a large enough USB attached disk and then to turn on Time Machine. Might not be the best solution for their needs but it is hard to imagine one which requires less effort.
Clearly the fact that it found an extra second added when it contacted its time servers indicated that this was actually stage one of a cunning DRM hack and so it went into lock down mode.
This does not excuse them! What you are saying is that they have a model which is so broken that it accepts ANY paper sent to them. You would expect them to figure out that the results of such a model will be to drag the conference into disrepute due to submission of crazy papers like this one.
Normally I would say you have a point but not when it comes to state-funded education. Clearly the school thinks that laptops are essential to the child's education (otherwise why are they buying them?). Given this then what right do they have to put such restrictions on activities at home? When they provide their pupils with text books are they told that you may only read them at certain hours of the day, that their usage of the book may be monitored, that if you take this book home you may not read other books etc. etc.?
The problem they have here is that either the laptops are essential to the kid's education. In which case they have a legal obligation to provide them and should not be allowed to withhold them if you do not agree to their draconian measures (anything beyond cost recovery if you lose/damage it would be unacceptable to my mind). Or they are an optional extra to enhance the educational experience, in which case, as a taxpayer, I would want to know why I am footing the bill for hundreds of free laptops which are not essential to kids' education.
So, as I see it, they have no way to justify these restrictions. If they do proceed with this then the one thing I can see the kids learning is an innate hatred of authority. This is probably not what you want to teach them.
Think about this for a second: the best place on earth, and still scared of what the government might do to me.
You have a strange concept of "best". Nowhere is perfect but there are still countries where you do not need to worry about the government taking punitive action for speaking your mind.
But this the case here. They have rules banning mass mailings not against communicating with the faculty i.e. the method of delivery not the act of delivery. Also I've never heard of laws against graffiti making an exception for political messages. Whether you scrawl a picture or a political message it is still illegal.
So are laws banning grafitti unconstitutional too in the US because they restrict a person right to free speech? I did not realize that freedom of speech meant that you had the right to use other people's property in a way they have expressly asked you not to, in order to get your message across.
At this rate Douglas Adams will have got it right. In a few years they'll outnumber us and the world will be run by white mice, well beige ones at any rate.
Those results look dodgy to me. It looks like the total time to check the filesystem decreases as the number of inodes increases. I could perhaps understand time per inode decreasing but not the total time.
Slashdot Mirror
Without intelligent life in the universe there would clearly be no philosophy. However the universe would still have laws of physics. Thus physics cannot be a subset of philosophy because it can exist without it. This might be a change since the 18th/19th century but given our huge improvement in understanding since then I would not regard historical definitions as a particularly accurate guide. Personally I think that the reason science grew out of philosophy is simply because philosophy was the only option available for the scientific mind several hundred years or more ago.
Until very recently, science was called natural philosophy. All the sciences have their origins in philosophy...
What you say is correct. However this does not mean that science is a subset of philosophy. The key difference is that science requires more than thought: it requires a physical universe to observe and test. It may then use philosophy to interpret and infer how that universe works but there is more than just thought involved.
Einstein said that gravity is a linear (not discrete) force.
Actually Newton said that. Einstein said that it was actually a"fictious" force caused by masses bending space-time so that what we think of as a straight line is not actually a straight line. The effect is something similar to standing on the inside of a rotating space station. If you did this and threw a ball into the air it would appear to come back to your hand as if there were a force acting on it. However in reality it moved in a straight line and you followed the arc of a circle and came back to it. (Note: gravity works by bending space time: no rotation is required, but the principle is the same).
The claim here is far more than just gravity being discrete. They are saying that space-time itself is discrete at scales of 10^-16 m (compare this to a nucleus which has a radius of 10^-15 m). However we have probed scales far smaller that this, down to 10^-18 m if my back of envelope calculation is correct - but certainly lower that 10^-16 m. So I am very curious to see how they can explain that there have been no observable phenomena at accelerators given this extremely coarse (relatively speaking) quantum space-time sea.
Unless she downloaded it without being notified upfront of the cost, she ain't going to win this one.
That depends on German and EU law. In the UK contracts are not valid unless the company can demonstrate a clear "meeting of the minds". So click boxes etc. are generally useless in terms of showing you have agreed to bizarre details of a EULA - you really need a signature.
Sadly, paying a lawyer to send that letter probably costs more than they are asking.
The real news here is that we have a totally new circuit element and heaven only knows where that can take us.
Exactly how is this a fundamentally new circuit element? Most ohmic resistors change their resistance when a current is passed through them because the current causes heating and the heating changes their resistance. Since they take time to cool down they will have a (rather limited) memory too.
Yes this is a very interesting device and vastly more practical in terms of applications for memory but, unless it does something the articles do not mention, calling it a new fundamental circuit component seems wrong because it appears that you can mimic its behaviour using a well insulated piece of wire. Of course the wire is not very useful in terms of applications (outside electric heaters and light bulbs) but nevertheless it is a resistance whose value depends on previous current history.
That may be true but it might be a bit of a PR disaster if they release a browser which only blocks non-Google ads.
There is no consensus: just plain wrong
An interesting link but your second link contains a substantial list of names who do not agree with the majority opinion. I would make a clear distinction between majority and consensus. As a non-expert it concerns me that there is such a long list of apparent experts who disagree with the majority opinion. Looking at my own field you would certainly not be able to find such a list of people who disagreed with the existence of, say, quarks. Perhaps a concensus is forming but it seems premature to say that there is one.
...and if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?
In addition these people are not making crazy-sounding arguments. For example I understood that the CO2-temperature relationship from ice samples now showed that the temperature rose BEFORE the CO2 level rose. I've yet to hear of any explanation as to why it is this way around (from either camp). There also needs to be some explanation of the causes of past sudden drops in temperature e.g. the little ice age in Europe that caused famine, froze the Thames etc. in medieval times. If we cannot explain that, before there was any industrial pollution, then how can we claim to know what is causing the current rise?
You are right that the problem is my lack of expertise but producing a plot showing forcings or other model derived data is not convincing unless you can first convince me that you really can model the climate accurately....and given the apparent huge variation in models from different experts that seems unlikely.
In summary I would say that, on a balance of probability, it seems more likely that we are significantly affecting the climate than not. So I would mark it as cause for concern and something we should certain aim to avoid where possible. However the current proposed action is that we need to spend billions and billions of dollars, completely rearrange our economy etc. etc. To argue for that much upheaval you need a rock solid argument not a balance of probability argument, much like you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to prison...and as long as there are a reasonable number of experts making (to the non-expert) logical, reasoned arguments against the majority opinion there will probably always be reasonable doubt, at least for non-experts.
Are you competent to evaluate controversial issues in high-energy physics?
Well yes, I am but that is not really the point. The point is are scientific methods being applied? Although I am high energy physicist and not a climatologist, it should be possible for a climatologist to provide convincing and conclusive evidence that humans are unambiguously the cause of the recent global warming. You have to be an expert to come up with the data and its interpretation but if you cannot explain the resulting evidence to a fellow scientist, even one outside your field, there is something wrong.
The problem with global warming (as I understand it) is that there is conflicting evidence as to the cause. So far I have not heard an expert on either side of the debate come up with convincing arguments to explain the other side's evidence. The conclusion I am therefore forced to reach is that we do not understand why the Earth is warming at the moment. Having had a chance to talk with an expert in a climate related field a couple of weeks ago this was his conclusion too.
So, I would disagree strongly with your '99%' concensus number and, while we should certainly respect and listen to the experts in the field, that does not mean that we cannot question them, especially when there is no concensus.
Have these people lost their minds? I spend $60,000 for an automobile...
Hey, if you are stupid enough to spend $60,000 on a car then who knows what you might be capable of?
How long before the first law suit claiming the ad is responsible for whatever driving calamity happened?
Probably not very long if the system really works: "Has this ad just distracted you and caused an accident? Call Deville and associates at 1-800-SUE-LEXUS."
...and they seem to have a hole in their product line between the mini and the Mac Pro
Have a look at the iMac - it sits nicely in the gap between the two. Regarding expandability why do you need PCI slots? I used to think like you - and got a Mac Pro - because I was used to sticking in PCI cards for this and that but now everything is via USB or Firewire. There is no need to add SCSI cards, highspeed ethernet cards etc. unless you have a specialized need e.g. fibrechannel for disk servers, 10Gb ethernet etc. So far I have yet to stick a single PCI card into the machine and would have been far better off saving the money and buying an iMac with an external disk enclosure.
...would leave a lot out for future generations.
The only people I can imagine that would be interested in such detailed material would be those studying law. As such I imagine the useful lifetime will be rather short, 100 years max, because laws change significantly on such timescales.
The stupid exploit the smart.
No, the "smart" businessman exploits the naive scientist. This is one of the reasons that, were I ever likely to invent something which was patentable, I'd find a businessman I'd trust to figure out how to take advantage of it. It requires a very different skill set from science.
Apparently, they don't have Anti-Lock Breaking in Canada.
That's because we are such nice people we don't have much of a problem with car theft. If you were talking about anti-lock braking though, the best brakes in the world can't do anything for you if the coefficient of friction between your tyre and the road is almost zero.
Since they apparently used OSX Server this is particularly bad. All they needed was a large enough USB attached disk and then to turn on Time Machine. Might not be the best solution for their needs but it is hard to imagine one which requires less effort.
Clearly the fact that it found an extra second added when it contacted its time servers indicated that this was actually stage one of a cunning DRM hack and so it went into lock down mode.
They appear to either hate political discourse or the sound-bite products of political discourse.
They clearly love irony though. A US university trying to ban words from the Queen's English?
This does not excuse them! What you are saying is that they have a model which is so broken that it accepts ANY paper sent to them. You would expect them to figure out that the results of such a model will be to drag the conference into disrepute due to submission of crazy papers like this one.
Normally I would say you have a point but not when it comes to state-funded education. Clearly the school thinks that laptops are essential to the child's education (otherwise why are they buying them?). Given this then what right do they have to put such restrictions on activities at home? When they provide their pupils with text books are they told that you may only read them at certain hours of the day, that their usage of the book may be monitored, that if you take this book home you may not read other books etc. etc.?
The problem they have here is that either the laptops are essential to the kid's education. In which case they have a legal obligation to provide them and should not be allowed to withhold them if you do not agree to their draconian measures (anything beyond cost recovery if you lose/damage it would be unacceptable to my mind). Or they are an optional extra to enhance the educational experience, in which case, as a taxpayer, I would want to know why I am footing the bill for hundreds of free laptops which are not essential to kids' education.
So, as I see it, they have no way to justify these restrictions. If they do proceed with this then the one thing I can see the kids learning is an innate hatred of authority. This is probably not what you want to teach them.
Think about this for a second: the best place on earth, and still scared of what the government might do to me.
You have a strange concept of "best". Nowhere is perfect but there are still countries where you do not need to worry about the government taking punitive action for speaking your mind.
But this the case here. They have rules banning mass mailings not against communicating with the faculty i.e. the method of delivery not the act of delivery. Also I've never heard of laws against graffiti making an exception for political messages. Whether you scrawl a picture or a political message it is still illegal.
So are laws banning grafitti unconstitutional too in the US because they restrict a person right to free speech? I did not realize that freedom of speech meant that you had the right to use other people's property in a way they have expressly asked you not to, in order to get your message across.
At this rate Douglas Adams will have got it right. In a few years they'll outnumber us and the world will be run by white mice, well beige ones at any rate.
Those results look dodgy to me. It looks like the total time to check the filesystem decreases as the number of inodes increases. I could perhaps understand time per inode decreasing but not the total time.