It's a fact that nearly all felons consumed significant quantities of DHMO in the hours before committing their crimes. And nearly all heroin users smoked marijuana before turning to harder drugs.
That's exactly the way it seems to me, too. Of course, it could be that clouds have a high degree of natural variability, and the effect of cloud seeding may be small, so it could take a very large number of experiments to demonstrate a statistically significant effect for cloud seeding. But that's a different statement altogether from saying that it's impossible to get a control group with clouds, which seems preposterous to me. You get control groups with random assignment, as you explain.
Yes, I do understand that clouds are all different. You simply randomly assign clouds to a control group or an experimental group. That's how you get controls. It doesn't matter how complicated clouds are -- it is trivial to get a control group. You don't seem to understand how to design controlled experiments. Please, provide a citation stating that it's impossible to perform controlled experiments on clouds, preferably with a lucid explanation for why it is so.
[citation needed]. You can easily find a control group. Simply randomly assign individuals of the population to the control group or the experimental group. This is done with people in drug trials all the time, and I would submit that people are even less predictable than clouds.
I would think anyone who understands how to design experiments would see the need for a proper control group. If you fly a plane through some clouds and dump iodide crystals, and don't fly any plane though other clouds, what caused the difference in precipitation? Was it the plane or the iodide crystals? Didn't they carry out such a proper experiment?
Code isn't patented. Algorithms are patented. Code is copyrighted. Names are trademarked. The name of Firefox is trademarked, the software and artwork are copyrighted, and it uses some patented algorithms.
I don't see how changing for bandwidth would stifle growth. Airlines make passengers pay for each seat on an airplane, no matter how full it is, even though the plane's going to fly the route anyway. The airline industry has grown quite a bit in the past several decades despite this. I don't see why charging for bandwidth use would affect competition over network speed.
If we didn't pay for the amount of electricity you used, people would use more electricity. After all, cranking the A/C down to 62 degrees don't cost nothin'! Then someone would have to pay for the extra generators to supply the extra demand.
The infrastructure is there and costs nearly the same if tons of data is going over it or no data is going over it.
But if people keep using more and more bandwidth, someone will have to pay for more and more infrastructure to support the ever growing usage. If we charge for bandwidth used, people will have an incentive to use less, and the cost will be reduced for all but the heaviest users.
Methane itself is odorless. I suppose you could be referring to the aromatic compounds that methane-based life might excrete. You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts joke. Yeah, imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
Individual scientists, like ordinary people, have all kinds of beliefs they cannot back up with evidence. If you ask a physicist which of string theory, loop quantum gravity, or other unification theory they think will be demonstrated to be correct, they can likely give you a detailed argument about which one they think is correct, even though there is no empirical evidence yet. What science is about is all these individual scientists arguing for what they think is right, and bringing to the table their best evidence for and against all the various ideas. Even though each individual scientist may be biased one way or another, the group as a whole will not be convinced until there's very good evidence for a specific idea.
This isn't to say that when scientists agree on something that it's necessarily right. It's just that if you want to claim that it's wrong and be taken seriously, you had better provide very good evidence to support your claim.
It's coming in Chrome 6.0. I'm waiting for the version where files opened with helper applications are not permanently downloaded to my downloads folder.
Re:Big questions were not answered
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
No, the writers didn't drop the numbers. The numbers corresponded to the last remaining candidates. The numbers were blessed or cursed, depending on how you want to look at it. The plane crash at the end was an Oceanic plane, not an Ajira plane, which Kate and Sawyer were on. It seems to me that all the important answers are right in the show, if you're observant enough to catch them.
Re:Not impressed, but here's my take
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I looked at the screencaps today and noticed there are fresh footprints. I think this scene is set after the Losties have all died, and another group of people recently brought to the island has happened upon the plane and wondered how it got there. They would never guess it's Oceanic 815! To them, it would be a mystery just like the hatch and statue were to us. I wonder who they would consider "the others"! Maybe Hurley's son or daughter is among them...
Re:So, my only question regarding Lost is
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it sums up both Lost and real life. Take, for example, physics and cosmology, where every time we reach a deeper level of understanding yet more mysteries unfold. What is dark matter? Dark energy? How did the universe come to be? What is the nature of fundamental particles? Why is gravity so weak compared to the other forces? Every answer results in another mystery.
It reminds me of a poem by Kurt Vonnegut:
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
The statement you quote says nothing about an explanation given in the show. All it says is that it really is occurring on present-day Earth. Not in the far future or distant past or an alternate dimension or in someone's mind. In other words, there are down-to-Earth explanations for everything occurring, but these explanations may or may not appear on the show. As to what explanations would appear on the show, Darlton made it very clear that they would not try to give a scientific explanation for everything.
In many areas, I have low confidence in myself, and I do all the better for it. I was unsure of how I would do when I studied computer science at the university level, and as a result I got mostly A+ grades my first year. As I grew more confident, my grades actually decreased. It also works the other way. How many incompetent boobs have you seen who are overconfident in their abilities? I would say their confidence does not depend on their skills, and thus they lack any motivation to try harder. Why would they? They're perfect already!
When it comes to asking girls on dates, overconfidence really does result in better performance. Women flock to overconfident jerks.
Re:Don't understand the hate
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
As I said, you do not like the answers provided. You can complain that the show didn't provide the answers you wanted and remain miserable, or accept them for what they are and be at peace. It's your choice, dude. You can come into the church whenever you're ready. I forgive you.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
The Dharma Initiative was there to study the unique electromagnetic properties of the island (i.e. the "light"). Food fell from the sky because it was dropped by the Dharma Initiative; presumably you're asking why it fell in 2004 which is probably because time is different on and off the island. The Egyptian symbolism is there presumably because it was brought by some of the people Jacob brought to the island. The purpose of the island is that it holds the light that is present in everyone.
Where the island itself came from has never been explained. I suppose that's just like real life. No one knows where the universe came from, do they?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just wondering what the heck is in our water supply!
It's a fact that nearly all felons consumed significant quantities of DHMO in the hours before committing their crimes. And nearly all heroin users smoked marijuana before turning to harder drugs.
That's exactly the way it seems to me, too. Of course, it could be that clouds have a high degree of natural variability, and the effect of cloud seeding may be small, so it could take a very large number of experiments to demonstrate a statistically significant effect for cloud seeding. But that's a different statement altogether from saying that it's impossible to get a control group with clouds, which seems preposterous to me. You get control groups with random assignment, as you explain.
Then it could cause a plane to crash, just like terrorists cause planes to crash? I see.
Yes, I do understand that clouds are all different. You simply randomly assign clouds to a control group or an experimental group. That's how you get controls. It doesn't matter how complicated clouds are -- it is trivial to get a control group. You don't seem to understand how to design controlled experiments. Please, provide a citation stating that it's impossible to perform controlled experiments on clouds, preferably with a lucid explanation for why it is so.
[citation needed]. You can easily find a control group. Simply randomly assign individuals of the population to the control group or the experimental group. This is done with people in drug trials all the time, and I would submit that people are even less predictable than clouds.
So, you admit the planes are disturbing the air and doing bad things. That is disturbing, indeed!
I would think anyone who understands how to design experiments would see the need for a proper control group. If you fly a plane through some clouds and dump iodide crystals, and don't fly any plane though other clouds, what caused the difference in precipitation? Was it the plane or the iodide crystals? Didn't they carry out such a proper experiment?
Code isn't patented. Algorithms are patented. Code is copyrighted. Names are trademarked. The name of Firefox is trademarked, the software and artwork are copyrighted, and it uses some patented algorithms.
I don't see how changing for bandwidth would stifle growth. Airlines make passengers pay for each seat on an airplane, no matter how full it is, even though the plane's going to fly the route anyway. The airline industry has grown quite a bit in the past several decades despite this. I don't see why charging for bandwidth use would affect competition over network speed.
If we didn't pay for the amount of electricity you used, people would use more electricity. After all, cranking the A/C down to 62 degrees don't cost nothin'! Then someone would have to pay for the extra generators to supply the extra demand.
But if people keep using more and more bandwidth, someone will have to pay for more and more infrastructure to support the ever growing usage. If we charge for bandwidth used, people will have an incentive to use less, and the cost will be reduced for all but the heaviest users.
Methane itself is odorless. I suppose you could be referring to the aromatic compounds that methane-based life might excrete. You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts joke. Yeah, imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
...The Sirens of Titan.
Individual scientists, like ordinary people, have all kinds of beliefs they cannot back up with evidence. If you ask a physicist which of string theory, loop quantum gravity, or other unification theory they think will be demonstrated to be correct, they can likely give you a detailed argument about which one they think is correct, even though there is no empirical evidence yet. What science is about is all these individual scientists arguing for what they think is right, and bringing to the table their best evidence for and against all the various ideas. Even though each individual scientist may be biased one way or another, the group as a whole will not be convinced until there's very good evidence for a specific idea.
This isn't to say that when scientists agree on something that it's necessarily right. It's just that if you want to claim that it's wrong and be taken seriously, you had better provide very good evidence to support your claim.
Elected officials regularly get "fired" and have to be rehired, often every two, four, or six years.
Yes, at least for Fedora. There's a repository and I get Chrome updates whenever I use Software Update or yum update.
It's coming in Chrome 6.0. I'm waiting for the version where files opened with helper applications are not permanently downloaded to my downloads folder.
No, the writers didn't drop the numbers. The numbers corresponded to the last remaining candidates. The numbers were blessed or cursed, depending on how you want to look at it. The plane crash at the end was an Oceanic plane, not an Ajira plane, which Kate and Sawyer were on. It seems to me that all the important answers are right in the show, if you're observant enough to catch them.
Actually, I looked at the screencaps today and noticed there are fresh footprints. I think this scene is set after the Losties have all died, and another group of people recently brought to the island has happened upon the plane and wondered how it got there. They would never guess it's Oceanic 815! To them, it would be a mystery just like the hatch and statue were to us. I wonder who they would consider "the others"! Maybe Hurley's son or daughter is among them...
Yes, it sums up both Lost and real life. Take, for example, physics and cosmology, where every time we reach a deeper level of understanding yet more mysteries unfold. What is dark matter? Dark energy? How did the universe come to be? What is the nature of fundamental particles? Why is gravity so weak compared to the other forces? Every answer results in another mystery.
It reminds me of a poem by Kurt Vonnegut:
The statement you quote says nothing about an explanation given in the show. All it says is that it really is occurring on present-day Earth. Not in the far future or distant past or an alternate dimension or in someone's mind. In other words, there are down-to-Earth explanations for everything occurring, but these explanations may or may not appear on the show. As to what explanations would appear on the show, Darlton made it very clear that they would not try to give a scientific explanation for everything.
In many areas, I have low confidence in myself, and I do all the better for it. I was unsure of how I would do when I studied computer science at the university level, and as a result I got mostly A+ grades my first year. As I grew more confident, my grades actually decreased. It also works the other way. How many incompetent boobs have you seen who are overconfident in their abilities? I would say their confidence does not depend on their skills, and thus they lack any motivation to try harder. Why would they? They're perfect already!
When it comes to asking girls on dates, overconfidence really does result in better performance. Women flock to overconfident jerks.
As I said, you do not like the answers provided. You can complain that the show didn't provide the answers you wanted and remain miserable, or accept them for what they are and be at peace. It's your choice, dude. You can come into the church whenever you're ready. I forgive you.
The Dharma Initiative was there to study the unique electromagnetic properties of the island (i.e. the "light"). Food fell from the sky because it was dropped by the Dharma Initiative; presumably you're asking why it fell in 2004 which is probably because time is different on and off the island. The Egyptian symbolism is there presumably because it was brought by some of the people Jacob brought to the island. The purpose of the island is that it holds the light that is present in everyone.
Where the island itself came from has never been explained. I suppose that's just like real life. No one knows where the universe came from, do they?