There is nothing new in the fact that even ancient processes can affect material on a very small scale (since they got a Nature paper, I am sure the particulars of this case are very intriguing).
The repeated beating of metal causes imperfections in the crystal structures which makes it harder. Japanese sword smiths knew what they were doing (or rather, did not know what they were doing) when they in a ritualistic manner repeadetely beat the metal, put it underground for a number of years, etc, etc.
What kind of energetic event does it take to break up and then hurl into space chunks of a planet that
Well, if you think about the impact in the first place; it is some rock that has fallen from very far through the Earth's gravitational field. Perhaps it had additional kinetic energy as well.
In theory, if all that energy was captured by another particle of the same size that could be sent out in space again.
But of course, rarely when we drop a rock does another one bounce up to about the same hight as the first one.
Nevertheless, a big rock should be able to eject a much smaller rock than itself.
I'm still waiting for a new planet to be added to our solar system.
I am still waiting for an old planet to be deducted from our solar system.
With more and more rocks almost the size of Pluto being found, chances are it will lose it's planethood.
Tor
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 1
The question should be unambiguous, otherwise you are testing to see if people "think like you". If you call it an intelligence test then you must be the definition of intelligence. The question should have opened by stating that these symbols should not be interpretted as representing mathematical numbers
I agree with the first part, that the question was ambiguous. However, I disagree with the rest. It is when you are faced with an ambiguous question that you should challenge yourself to find answers "outside the box". If the question is ambiguous and not numerical, why should the answer follow a mathematical definition? And for the "think like you" part, I would say that this is the whole point that Ockham's razor tries to address. If the question seems ambiguos and highly dependent on if I "think like you" then is the time to find objective criteria, such as an answer that is as independent as possible of what people think and know.
I think you are misusing Ockham's razor
Well, I am probably extrapolating it beyond what he would ever have done; but I am not the first to realize it's applicability to this type of problem.
Theorizing that one number is unique because it is prime and the others are not does not contain any unecessary assumptions as primality is a basic feature of certain numbers that is true of them regardless of the system used to express them.
This is a circular argument. The whole point with the other solution is that "8" can be analyzed by just the properties of the symbol itself, and not by the properties of the mathematical abstraction. You assume it is a mathematical abstraction, and then use that assumption to prove itself.
Best,
Tor
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 1
It should fail Occam's razor, anyway. A string of numbers that are not considered 'numeric' for the sake of the question is rather obtuse.
This is the best counter-argument so far, it is a good point. One observation though is that the question itself is not numerical at all; it is meaningless mathematically speaking. That can be seen as a hint to think more out of the box.
Another thing is that the for the "numerical" solution you have the burden of proof that the literal interpretation is illegal. If you accept any interpretation, literal or numerical, then the literal symmetry explanation wins.
Tor
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 1
Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it.
Actually, Occam (who was religious) was the first to show that God cannot be proven, you have to believe.
Also, the fact that he was a medieval fart does not make everything he said wrong (if it did, medival farts would be extremely useful in predicting things).
Tor
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you
a) Write the number in binary it is not symmetric. Mind you, it is:) OK. Scratch that.
b) If you use an OCR front it is not (the top part of the glyph is skew and smaller).
c) If you do not write down the number but represent it in, for instance, a binary set of charges in capacitors ina dynamic RAM device I am not sure that the concept of symmetry applies at all.
d) If you write it as a Maya numeral (Which would be 1 line and 3 dot on top of it) it would only be symmetrical in one axis, but so would some of the other numbers.
e) Put your computer in a font which displays numbers with different glyphs and wham, no more symmetry. Try Adobe WoobBlock or something weird.
So symmetry is NOT a property of the number itself. Primeness is though.
Yes, but the whole issue here was whether the symbol should be just a character or treated as an abstraction for a numerical quantity. All these points assume that we have decided that it is an abstraction for a numerical quantity (and that the symmetric property should hold for other ways of writing the same numerical quantity).
If the figure 8 is just a meaningless character, then you write it as 8, with the same font, in Maya as well.
You cannot asume the mathematical-abstraction interpretation to prove itself.
That is not for me to answer, but for the Iraqi people.
Well, if you want to make a statement about whether the world would be a better place with or without the US, then you have to answer questions like this.
I think that the US did not invade Iraq to end a dictatorship, but rather to have a military base in the Middle East.
The US invaded Iraq for many reasons; ending a dictatorship was one (they would never have invaded a working democracy), finding WMD was a second, getting lower oil prices a third. Europe has basically the same equation for determining if war is right, it just that some parameters are different (sensitivity to direct casualites higher, sensitivity to cruel armed dictatorships is lower).
I think most people in Europe and the US would agree that the big problem in this world is that most people live under corrupt dictatorships; which causes poverty and oppression. In solving this problem, the US is more confrontational, whereas Europe prefers a dialogue. Both ways have merits, and although I often prefer a less compromising attitude; I respect those that feel differently. What really makes me upset though, is when Europe and the US disagree so much over the best way to solve these problems that they see each other as the problem, instead of the Saddams and Kim Jong Ills of the world. Of course, if Saddam had left power or become very democratic then Iraq would not even have been an issue. The Iraq people would have lived wihtout either bombings, torture chambers or sanctions and they would have been wealty selling oil to the rest of the world. This would have been the best solution! The fact that this did not happen should have caused protests against Saddam, not against G.W.B (even if we don't think war is the answer).
Tor
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 1
That really isn't fair because the question has taken shapes which we recognize as symbols representing an abstract concept and changed their meaning into "simple shapes".
Well, you would like to make the assumption that the 8 should be treated not as a symbol on the page, but as an abstraction for a numeric quantity. A reasonable assumption, perhaps, - certainly one that most would make.
But the whole point with this question type is that the answer you get depend very much on what assumptions you make. So instead of discussing the answer, we should probably discuss our strategy in making assumptions. In your case, you suggest a majority strategy - we should make the assumptions that most people would be inclined to make (on the other hand, your answer assumes knowledge of prime numbers, which most people do not have). One problem is that then the right answer is dependent on which people take the test - if you don't know this your strategy does not work.
The Mensa/ Ockham's razor based approach is to find the solution which makes the fewest possible assumptions.
Furthermore, the accuracy of that answer given depends on font and typeset. Few people write the number 8 with square symmetry by hand, and I've seen many font faces with assymetric 8's.
This assumes that we know that the 8 can be written in other ways than that the way on the paper; and that the solution should hold for such modifications as well. This rationale does not pass Ockhams razor either, but perhaps it wins in some "typical assumtions" strategy.
Tor
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 1
AC: would argue that symmetry doesn't have much to do with numbers printed on a page.
Danila: Isn't that odd that you have to explain to a clueless person your answers on the Mensa entrance test?:)
Both of these posts argue that we should take certain things for granted because of the context.
This is usually a very good strategy, but then of course the answer we get depends on our assumptions and the context. A discussion on "the right" answer becomes an excercise in deciding who has the best assumptions and the most plausible context, or who has the greatest knowledge (in this case of mathematics).
The whole point with the Ockham's razor based strategy I outlined above is to seek the answer that takes a minimalistic view on assumtions and context. You assume nothing, you have no outside knowledge, and procede from there. This is Mensa's rationale as well (although the question is not from the entrace test, which is purely symbolic).
Tor
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Can you point us to the authoritative "hierarchy of simplicity?
No. I think the best way is to imagine that you have to explain both alternatives to somebody who is completely clueless, and see which is quicker and easier to explain.
Of course this method does not always work, but I think that in this case most would agree that the symmetry alternative is simpler.
"See if, you turn the paper, the 8 still looks the same. It is the same if you look at it from either direction. If you put a mirror in the middle it does not change. If you look at the other numbers, this does not happen; look!"
"See, the 5 is a prime number. That means that it can only be divided evenly by itself, and one. Division means that...[lengthy explanation]. Even division means that [lengthier explanation]. The reason that one is not included in the definition is that [....]. Now we can look at all the other numbers in turn and see that they are not prime numbers [lengthy calculations, or even lengthier explanations on how they can be indentifed quickly]. Etc. Etc."
Tor
Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Which is the odd one out: (a) 4 (b) 15 (c) 9 (d) 12 (e) 5 (f) 8 (g) 30 (h) 18 (i) 24 (j) 10
Well, anyone who knows a prime from a hole in the ground would choose (e), but the correct answer was (f), 8. And why? Because it is the only "symmetrical" number, as printed on the page!
Well, according to Ockhams razor I would argue that Mensa is right. The concept of symmetry is much simpler than the concept of prime numbers.
I do see a lot of positive change in China. I know that in the 80-ies China was a very bad communist dictatorship with violent student protests. But the past couple of years, i've been following chinese news-sites and forums more closely, and i see a lot of positive comments from Chinese students. I also noticed that most of the 'old' regime fropm 80-ies China is replaced by much younger and much more open leaders.
I agree with this completely. However, they still have quite a ways to go, right? When I was there only a few years ago I witnessed medieval scenes of mass executions at stadiums.
Or is it because the USA is polluting a lot more than everyone else nowadays, that you get the right to keep on doing this ?
China pollutes about the same as the US, in absolute terms. Their much lower BNP per capita is compensated for by a larger population and much less efficient use of energy. Furthermore their polution is growing explosively, whereas the US' is growing slowly or not at all. The same relationship is true for the industrialized world versus the developing world in general. While it would in some sense be "fair" just asking US and industrial countries to reduce their pollution it is a very unrealistic way of capping the total, since their use of energy is already efficient and growth is only slow. It would be more effective to also address the other half that is growing explosively and is very inefficent, of course with help from the industrial nations. While I also think that the US should have signed Kyoto, it is not as simple as often portraid in Europe. It should also be noted that many nations that did sign Kyoto have completely violated it (e.g., Japan, parts of Europe), which arguably is worse than not signing.
On another note, I believe that within five years, it will be clear that the USA cannot stay the sole superpower on this earth. I foresee a strong growth for United Europe, China, India and Brasil.The world will become a better place then.
I don't believe in the Europe part. The reason that Europe lags the US (in terms of economic and military strength) is that it is internally divided and that the economy is regulated and taxed much more greately. The first part may change a bit, the second probably not at all. About China and India you are probably right, although it will take longer than 5 years; but in 30 years China could very well have the economic (and thus the political) strength of the US. I think that that will make the world a better world if and only if democratic development has followed.
Also, I would ask you to think through the better world statement once again. Europe has grown very comfortable sitting in a sofa and finding faults with whatever the US does. But would the world really be better if US also sat down on the sofa and did little as well? For all the problems in Iraq, if you had the power would you turn back time and put Saddam back? This is a tough question, but unless you can straightly answer yes I don't think you should criticise the US for this. Most people in Europe love to complain on the lack of WMD and the impact on oil prices, but very few actually have the integrity to say that the world would be better if Iraq had been left alone, with Saddam in power. That is an attitude that I hold in very low regard.
Best,
Tor
Words change in meaning over time
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the article:
We have a grave problem with this word
Well, it so happens to be that we humans constantly shift the meaning of the words in our language. It is believed that the strongest driver of this is the universal appeal in appearing interesting to others.
Language teachers and writers of articles such as this fight a losing battle against such changes in language. Of course, in the long run, a word is defined by the people who use it and not by some dictionary from Oxford. The latter can be changed.
The guardians of language are often the biggest opponents of it's development and modernization. Isn't that ironic?
You missed my point. My point is not that the US is perfect, my point is that the alternative is worse. I rather have a hedgemony of a capitalistic democracy than one of a dictatorship.
emprison people on Guantanamo without trial
You can't be serious. Do you really mean that you would prefer the Chinese because of superior fairness and protections of ther judicial system? Guantanamo hit the news because it is an exception in the US. You seem to have forgotten that in most countries on this planet, including China, imprisonment (and torture) without due process is the normal way of things.
discard worldwide treaties like Kyoto
The only reason China signed Kyoto was that it contained no obligations for them whatsoever. None. This is by the way what the US reacted upon.
does not invade other countries without a valid reason,
Tibet? This brings me back to my original point. Invasion of Iraq was a mixed blessing, as I am sure most Iraqies would agree. It is great to be rid of Saddam, but many innocent were hurt during the conflict also. Tibet is only bad. Many innocent were hurt... and they get worse leadership than they had before. If Taiwan were invaded (which it might be, if the Chinese get a stronger military) we see more of that
nd does not spy with echelon on my industry...
Do you really think the US is the only country which spies on yours? The difference is that the US has the most sophisticated equipment; but that is no reason to wish for other countries to get more sophisticated equipment also.
I will try to say this without being a flamebait. It is fine for USA to have space technologies with many military applications, or to have the ability to hit targets around the world accurately. But if another country does this, it threatens world peace.
I agree that foreign military power is no more threat to peace than US. But issue is not only peace, but what kind of peace. I much rather have US superiority than Chinese. I happen tho think that the US way of governement is possibly the best in the world, and definitively far superior to that of China. Increased US influence is a mixed blessing. I can see nothing good coming out of increased Chinese influence.
I personally believe that any discovery of life larger than bacteria would lend large credence to evolutionary theory. While the majority of people are now convinced of evolution, there still remain pockets of faithful that follow creationist theory
From a scientific point of view, we don't need any proof for evolutionary theory. It is already completely established.
That some religous fundamentalists believe otherwise is annoying, but in the long run we know who always wins arguments between science and religion. It just takes time. It took hundreds of years for them to accept that Earth revolves around the sun or acknowledging that species can become extinct.
What life on Mars does tell us about life is the probabilities of which it arises, or spreads between planets. Even if we cannot determine which one, finding one constraint for two unknowns is a huge step forward.
could probably be better spent in any number of ways:
#
improving open source software that people will actually *use*
raising money for your favorite charity
mentoring a kid who needs a role model
This post comes up every time somebody does a crazy project. Sorry for Karma-whoring, but I post the same reply every time.
This project is being done for fun. We people are odd beings - we do not want to spend all our time raising money for charity and writing useful code for somebody else. We like to spend both some time and money on having fun. It would be a great world if everybody was constantly productive... or maybe not.
Instead of complaining on the odd guy who actually is really creative with his leisure time, why don't you take a crack at all the people who are only sitting on their butts and watching TV or reading Slashdot.
eBay is not necessarily a factor in determining how much something is really worth.
Your assumption is that there is such a thing as an objective evaluation of things.
Sorry, but on eBay (or for that matter in free markets in general) everybody is allowed to decide subjectively what something is worth to them. There is no objective value of a quick ride to work; it depends on the persons income and impatience.
This is like buying tickets for a sporting event or concert, or the domain-name speculation game.
Speculators will bid up to enormous prices for the stickers, then will resell them to desperate motorists, making a profit
It is ironic that you mention sporting events as these are examples of what happen when goods are not sold according to market value. Then you get long queues and arbitrators who stand in queue for a long time only to resell tickets at market value. The whole point of this is to sell it at market value in the first place - auctions with good information are widely regarded as the most efficient way of doing this.
(a) Not a representative number are sold
(b) In the case a smaller number are sold, that the sales price is completely misinterpreted to be valid for a much larger number of tickets
?
Tor
The spinning part and a mounted camera is a good start. What is missing is a set of sensors that measure distance to the spinning object, at various heights.
This is actually not completely impossible to do (but a royal pain), I have heard of guys who did it in lab classes in college. The most troublesome part is suppose to be converting all the distance readings into a useful data format.
Keep in mind that a higher framerate equates into larger files and more processing required which then equates into higher costs. You have to transfer a larger file, have more space to hold it, and have more processing oomph at the theatres to decode it.
Wether you have to file transfer size to the movie theatersincreases from 1 to 1.5 GB (or whatever) is the smallest of issues when going to higher frame rate.
The real issue is probably the cost of more advanced cameras and projectors.
I liked your point about variable frame rates though, you would think that this would not be too hard.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing new in the fact that even ancient processes can affect material on a very small scale (since they got a Nature paper, I am sure the particulars of this case are very intriguing).
The repeated beating of metal causes imperfections in the crystal structures which makes it harder. Japanese sword smiths knew what they were doing (or rather, did not know what they were doing) when they in a ritualistic manner repeadetely beat the metal, put it underground for a number of years, etc, etc.
Tor
What kind of energetic event does it take to break up and then hurl into space chunks of a planet that
Well, if you think about the impact in the first place; it is some rock that has fallen from very far through the Earth's gravitational field. Perhaps it had additional kinetic energy as well.
In theory, if all that energy was captured by another particle of the same size that could be sent out in space again.
But of course, rarely when we drop a rock does another one bounce up to about the same hight as the first one.
Nevertheless, a big rock should be able to eject a much smaller rock than itself.
Tor
I'm still waiting for a new planet to be added to our solar system.
I am still waiting for an old planet to be deducted from our solar system.
With more and more rocks almost the size of Pluto being found, chances are it will lose it's planethood.
Tor
The question should be unambiguous, otherwise you are testing to see if people "think like you". If you call it an intelligence test then you must be the definition of intelligence. The question should have opened by stating that these symbols should not be interpretted as representing mathematical numbers
I agree with the first part, that the question was ambiguous. However, I disagree with the rest. It is when you are faced with an ambiguous question that you should challenge yourself to find answers "outside the box". If the question is ambiguous and not numerical, why should the answer follow a mathematical definition? And for the "think like you" part, I would say that this is the whole point that Ockham's razor tries to address. If the question seems ambiguos and highly dependent on if I "think like you" then is the time to find objective criteria, such as an answer that is as independent as possible of what people think and know.
I think you are misusing Ockham's razor
Well, I am probably extrapolating it beyond what he would ever have done; but I am not the first to realize it's applicability to this type of problem.
Theorizing that one number is unique because it is prime and the others are not does not contain any unecessary assumptions as primality is a basic feature of certain numbers that is true of them regardless of the system used to express them.
This is a circular argument. The whole point with the other solution is that "8" can be analyzed by just the properties of the symbol itself, and not by the properties of the mathematical abstraction. You assume it is a mathematical abstraction, and then use that assumption to prove itself.
Best,
Tor
It should fail Occam's razor, anyway. A string of numbers that are not considered 'numeric' for the sake of the question is rather obtuse.
This is the best counter-argument so far, it is a good point. One observation though is that the question itself is not numerical at all; it is meaningless mathematically speaking. That can be seen as a hint to think more out of the box.
Another thing is that the for the "numerical" solution you have the burden of proof that the literal interpretation is illegal. If you accept any interpretation, literal or numerical, then the literal symmetry explanation wins.
Tor
Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it.
Actually, Occam (who was religious) was the first to show that God cannot be proven, you have to believe.
Also, the fact that he was a medieval fart does not make everything he said wrong (if it did, medival farts would be extremely useful in predicting things).
Tor
If you a) Write the number in binary it is not symmetric. Mind you, it is:) OK. Scratch that. b) If you use an OCR front it is not (the top part of the glyph is skew and smaller). c) If you do not write down the number but represent it in, for instance, a binary set of charges in capacitors ina dynamic RAM device I am not sure that the concept of symmetry applies at all. d) If you write it as a Maya numeral (Which would be 1 line and 3 dot on top of it) it would only be symmetrical in one axis, but so would some of the other numbers. e) Put your computer in a font which displays numbers with different glyphs and wham, no more symmetry. Try Adobe WoobBlock or something weird. So symmetry is NOT a property of the number itself. Primeness is though.
Yes, but the whole issue here was whether the symbol should be just a character or treated as an abstraction for a numerical quantity. All these points assume that we have decided that it is an abstraction for a numerical quantity (and that the symmetric property should hold for other ways of writing the same numerical quantity).
If the figure 8 is just a meaningless character, then you write it as 8, with the same font, in Maya as well.
You cannot asume the mathematical-abstraction interpretation to prove itself.
Tor
That is not for me to answer, but for the Iraqi people.
Well, if you want to make a statement about whether the world would be a better place with or without the US, then you have to answer questions like this.
I think that the US did not invade Iraq to end a dictatorship, but rather to have a military base in the Middle East.
The US invaded Iraq for many reasons; ending a dictatorship was one (they would never have invaded a working democracy), finding WMD was a second, getting lower oil prices a third. Europe has basically the same equation for determining if war is right, it just that some parameters are different (sensitivity to direct casualites higher, sensitivity to cruel armed dictatorships is lower).
I think most people in Europe and the US would agree that the big problem in this world is that most people live under corrupt dictatorships; which causes poverty and oppression. In solving this problem, the US is more confrontational, whereas Europe prefers a dialogue. Both ways have merits, and although I often prefer a less compromising attitude; I respect those that feel differently. What really makes me upset though, is when Europe and the US disagree so much over the best way to solve these problems that they see each other as the problem, instead of the Saddams and Kim Jong Ills of the world. Of course, if Saddam had left power or become very democratic then Iraq would not even have been an issue. The Iraq people would have lived wihtout either bombings, torture chambers or sanctions and they would have been wealty selling oil to the rest of the world. This would have been the best solution! The fact that this did not happen should have caused protests against Saddam, not against G.W.B (even if we don't think war is the answer).
Tor
That really isn't fair because the question has taken shapes which we recognize as symbols representing an abstract concept and changed their meaning into "simple shapes".
Well, you would like to make the assumption that the 8 should be treated not as a symbol on the page, but as an abstraction for a numeric quantity. A reasonable assumption, perhaps, - certainly one that most would make.
But the whole point with this question type is that the answer you get depend very much on what assumptions you make. So instead of discussing the answer, we should probably discuss our strategy in making assumptions. In your case, you suggest a majority strategy - we should make the assumptions that most people would be inclined to make (on the other hand, your answer assumes knowledge of prime numbers, which most people do not have). One problem is that then the right answer is dependent on which people take the test - if you don't know this your strategy does not work.
The Mensa/ Ockham's razor based approach is to find the solution which makes the fewest possible assumptions.
Furthermore, the accuracy of that answer given depends on font and typeset. Few people write the number 8 with square symmetry by hand, and I've seen many font faces with assymetric 8's.
This assumes that we know that the 8 can be written in other ways than that the way on the paper; and that the solution should hold for such modifications as well. This rationale does not pass Ockhams razor either, but perhaps it wins in some "typical assumtions" strategy.
Tor
AC: would argue that symmetry doesn't have much to do with numbers printed on a page.
:)
Danila: Isn't that odd that you have to explain to a clueless person your answers on the Mensa entrance test?
Both of these posts argue that we should take certain things for granted because of the context.
This is usually a very good strategy, but then of course the answer we get depends on our assumptions and the context. A discussion on "the right" answer becomes an excercise in deciding who has the best assumptions and the most plausible context, or who has the greatest knowledge (in this case of mathematics).
The whole point with the Ockham's razor based strategy I outlined above is to seek the answer that takes a minimalistic view on assumtions and context. You assume nothing, you have no outside knowledge, and procede from there. This is Mensa's rationale as well (although the question is not from the entrace test, which is purely symbolic).
Tor
Can you point us to the authoritative "hierarchy of simplicity?
No. I think the best way is to imagine that you have to explain both alternatives to somebody who is completely clueless, and see which is quicker and easier to explain.
Of course this method does not always work, but I think that in this case most would agree that the symmetry alternative is simpler.
"See if, you turn the paper, the 8 still looks the same. It is the same if you look at it from either direction. If you put a mirror in the middle it does not change. If you look at the other numbers, this does not happen; look!"
"See, the 5 is a prime number. That means that it can only be divided evenly by itself, and one. Division means that...[lengthy explanation]. Even division means that [lengthier explanation]. The reason that one is not included in the definition is that [....]. Now we can look at all the other numbers in turn and see that they are not prime numbers [lengthy calculations, or even lengthier explanations on how they can be indentifed quickly]. Etc. Etc."
Tor
Which is the odd one out: (a) 4 (b) 15 (c) 9 (d) 12 (e) 5 (f) 8 (g) 30 (h) 18 (i) 24 (j) 10
Well, anyone who knows a prime from a hole in the ground would choose (e), but the correct answer was (f), 8. And why? Because it is the only "symmetrical" number, as printed on the page!
Well, according to Ockhams razor I would argue that Mensa is right. The concept of symmetry is much simpler than the concept of prime numbers.
Tor
I do see a lot of positive change in China. I know that in the 80-ies China was a very bad communist dictatorship with violent student protests. But the past couple of years, i've been following chinese news-sites and forums more closely, and i see a lot of positive comments from Chinese students. I also noticed that most of the 'old' regime fropm 80-ies China is replaced by much younger and much more open leaders.
I agree with this completely. However, they still have quite a ways to go, right? When I was there only a few years ago I witnessed medieval scenes of mass executions at stadiums.
Or is it because the USA is polluting a lot more than everyone else nowadays, that you get the right to keep on doing this ?
China pollutes about the same as the US, in absolute terms. Their much lower BNP per capita is compensated for by a larger population and much less efficient use of energy. Furthermore their polution is growing explosively, whereas the US' is growing slowly or not at all. The same relationship is true for the industrialized world versus the developing world in general. While it would in some sense be "fair" just asking US and industrial countries to reduce their pollution it is a very unrealistic way of capping the total, since their use of energy is already efficient and growth is only slow. It would be more effective to also address the other half that is growing explosively and is very inefficent, of course with help from the industrial nations. While I also think that the US should have signed Kyoto, it is not as simple as often portraid in Europe. It should also be noted that many nations that did sign Kyoto have completely violated it (e.g., Japan, parts of Europe), which arguably is worse than not signing.
On another note, I believe that within five years, it will be clear that the USA cannot stay the sole superpower on this earth. I foresee a strong growth for United Europe, China, India and Brasil.The world will become a better place then.
I don't believe in the Europe part. The reason that Europe lags the US (in terms of economic and military strength) is that it is internally divided and that the economy is regulated and taxed much more greately. The first part may change a bit, the second probably not at all. About China and India you are probably right, although it will take longer than 5 years; but in 30 years China could very well have the economic (and thus the political) strength of the US. I think that that will make the world a better world if and only if democratic development has followed.
Also, I would ask you to think through the better world statement once again. Europe has grown very comfortable sitting in a sofa and finding faults with whatever the US does. But would the world really be better if US also sat down on the sofa and did little as well? For all the problems in Iraq, if you had the power would you turn back time and put Saddam back? This is a tough question, but unless you can straightly answer yes I don't think you should criticise the US for this. Most people in Europe love to complain on the lack of WMD and the impact on oil prices, but very few actually have the integrity to say that the world would be better if Iraq had been left alone, with Saddam in power. That is an attitude that I hold in very low regard.
Best,
Tor
From the article:
We have a grave problem with this word
Well, it so happens to be that we humans constantly shift the meaning of the words in our language. It is believed that the strongest driver of this is the universal appeal in appearing interesting to others.
Language teachers and writers of articles such as this fight a losing battle against such changes in language. Of course, in the long run, a word is defined by the people who use it and not by some dictionary from Oxford. The latter can be changed.
The guardians of language are often the biggest opponents of it's development and modernization. Isn't that ironic?
Tor
You missed my point. My point is not that the US is perfect, my point is that the alternative is worse. I rather have a hedgemony of a capitalistic democracy than one of a dictatorship.
... and they get worse leadership than they had before. If Taiwan were invaded (which it might be, if the Chinese get a stronger military) we see more of that
emprison people on Guantanamo without trial
You can't be serious. Do you really mean that you would prefer the Chinese because of superior fairness and protections of ther judicial system? Guantanamo hit the news because it is an exception in the US. You seem to have forgotten that in most countries on this planet, including China, imprisonment (and torture) without due process is the normal way of things.
discard worldwide treaties like Kyoto
The only reason China signed Kyoto was that it contained no obligations for them whatsoever. None. This is by the way what the US reacted upon.
does not invade other countries without a valid reason,
Tibet? This brings me back to my original point. Invasion of Iraq was a mixed blessing, as I am sure most Iraqies would agree. It is great to be rid of Saddam, but many innocent were hurt during the conflict also. Tibet is only bad. Many innocent were hurt
nd does not spy with echelon on my industry...
Do you really think the US is the only country which spies on yours? The difference is that the US has the most sophisticated equipment; but that is no reason to wish for other countries to get more sophisticated equipment also.
Tor
I will try to say this without being a flamebait. It is fine for USA to have space technologies with many military applications, or to have the ability to hit targets around the world accurately. But if another country does this, it threatens world peace.
I agree that foreign military power is no more threat to peace than US. But issue is not only peace, but what kind of peace. I much rather have US superiority than Chinese. I happen tho think that the US way of governement is possibly the best in the world, and definitively far superior to that of China. Increased US influence is a mixed blessing. I can see nothing good coming out of increased Chinese influence.
Tor
Healthy competition is good.
It is only unfourtunate if China and the US try to do exactly the same thing, and don't share their experiences.
If they set different, ambitious goals it can extremely fruitful for mankind. And there seems to be no shortage of interesting projects.
Tor
I would beg to differ. The largest creationist organisation in the world, namely Answers In Genesis, is based out of Acacia Ridge in Australia.
I don't know this for a fact, but I think that even bigger creationist organizations can be found in the governments of teochratic Islamic countries.
For example, God probably has a very prominent position in the world view taught in Iranian schools.
Tor
I personally believe that any discovery of life larger than bacteria would lend large credence to evolutionary theory. While the majority of people are now convinced of evolution, there still remain pockets of faithful that follow creationist theory
From a scientific point of view, we don't need any proof for evolutionary theory. It is already completely established.
That some religous fundamentalists believe otherwise is annoying, but in the long run we know who always wins arguments between science and religion. It just takes time. It took hundreds of years for them to accept that Earth revolves around the sun or acknowledging that species can become extinct.
What life on Mars does tell us about life is the probabilities of which it arises, or spreads between planets. Even if we cannot determine which one, finding one constraint for two unknowns is a huge step forward.
Tor
could probably be better spent in any number of ways: #
improving open source software that people will actually *use*
raising money for your favorite charity
mentoring a kid who needs a role model
This post comes up every time somebody does a crazy project. Sorry for Karma-whoring, but I post the same reply every time.
This project is being done for fun. We people are odd beings - we do not want to spend all our time raising money for charity and writing useful code for somebody else. We like to spend both some time and money on having fun. It would be a great world if everybody was constantly productive... or maybe not.
Instead of complaining on the odd guy who actually is really creative with his leisure time, why don't you take a crack at all the people who are only sitting on their butts and watching TV or reading Slashdot.
Tor
eBay is not necessarily a factor in determining how much something is really worth.
Your assumption is that there is such a thing as an objective evaluation of things.
Sorry, but on eBay (or for that matter in free markets in general) everybody is allowed to decide subjectively what something is worth to them. There is no objective value of a quick ride to work; it depends on the persons income and impatience.
This is like buying tickets for a sporting event or concert, or the domain-name speculation game. Speculators will bid up to enormous prices for the stickers, then will resell them to desperate motorists, making a profit
It is ironic that you mention sporting events as these are examples of what happen when goods are not sold according to market value. Then you get long queues and arbitrators who stand in queue for a long time only to resell tickets at market value. The whole point of this is to sell it at market value in the first place - auctions with good information are widely regarded as the most efficient way of doing this.
Tor
How do you know that:
(a) Not a representative number are sold
(b) In the case a smaller number are sold, that the sales price is completely misinterpreted to be valid for a much larger number of tickets
?
Tor
Post partial -> They know that you have it
Post whole -> What is the remaining incentive to change anything?
Tor
The spinning part and a mounted camera is a good start. What is missing is a set of sensors that measure distance to the spinning object, at various heights.
This is actually not completely impossible to do (but a royal pain), I have heard of guys who did it in lab classes in college. The most troublesome part is suppose to be converting all the distance readings into a useful data format.
Tor
Keep in mind that a higher framerate equates into larger files and more processing required which then equates into higher costs. You have to transfer a larger file, have more space to hold it, and have more processing oomph at the theatres to decode it.
Wether you have to file transfer size to the movie theatersincreases from 1 to 1.5 GB (or whatever) is the smallest of issues when going to higher frame rate.
The real issue is probably the cost of more advanced cameras and projectors.
I liked your point about variable frame rates though, you would think that this would not be too hard.
Tor