just read it and loved it. The only way I could describe it to people (even PKD fans) was to imagine if Kurt Vonnegut took his weight in mushrooms and wrote a book about God, the universe and everything.
Maybe they could do a film, within a film sort fo thing.
well not to sound like a fanboy but Steve is a damn good speaker/presenter. he doesn't behave like a monkey to get people motivated. he doesn't "umm" and "ah" his way through it. He's cool and polished. And to be honest what's better than seeing a demo or the product itself than waiting for it to be "filterd" by the media. I want demos not snide comments by a 95% Windows dominated media (qv iPod-killer stories).
analogy: if i'm a fan of a particular director and his new movie is coming out soon and I say what the surprise ending of it is - am I giving free advertising for the movie or am I ruining the surprise for the people who were about to buy a ticket to see it???
(Of course, this isn't on the same level : knowing about the $500 dollar Mac doesn't stop me buying it..but what the hey..analogy city is where I live)
you sent the "Debunking Myths" email to a client? You're braver than I thought. The only thing you don't insult them about is there taste in dog kiddie porn.:)
But I agree. I think by this time next year Actionscript would be robust enough and mature enough to be as good to program in as any other high-end language. Since I'm a big believer in one frame movies calling a mass of actionscript files it would be great to have a code friendlier version of the flash ide though. Maybe there's an Eclipse plugin around somewhere.
you bet me to it - but still why they made it of the form key=value&key2=value2 etc drives me nuts. I love putting things in configuration files and to have all your properties on one line kinda sucks. Yep, maybe I should have done it in XML, but hell a properties file should be.txt and have one line for each property!
Apart from the (funny) scarcasm the poster is true. All of the above are theories, whether we like it not, but at the same time there's nothin' wrong with that. (Another nice example is "The Laws Of Gravity" not a law, still just a theory, but historically such ideas were called laws - well it was the beginning of modern science).
to be honest I think the UK should be screwed for every cent they have for not joining the euro "oh, we'll lose our sovereignty!". look guys you lost it years ago - you're just the lapdog of the USA and in fact it's for the US's best interest to keep you out of the euro. Don't want the euro to be too powerful or all of that oil will be paid with them instead of the USD.
Anyway, maybe this might backfire and the EU will force the European equivalents of the RIAA to standardise over the whole EU. Who knows?
so you're saying that..science works. Given a big enough time scale this just looks like going from total ignorance on a subject to (pretty good) knowledge on a subject. The heaviside function of this in, say, a 1,000 years time span looks, pretty steep. In fact, the Wegener theory seems about right if you realise it wasn't that long ago that even knew what the coast line of South America even looked like.
All of the above examples shows that science works in the long run AND that it's impossible to see which ones are right and which ones are wrong AT THE PRESENT TIME without anything better than the concensus to tell them apart.
Want to show how many things the consensus got right? No. That would ruin the argument. In fact, I would even say that the concensus has about 60-80% of things right. The above examples are just some of the howlers - not the norm!
In this weeks New Scientist (hard copy only) you can read the antithesis of Crichton's piece by Simon Singh. Science pretty much acts like an elastic band, the more you try and pull people into a given camp the more resistant it is and it's at THE MOST RESISTENT just before it gives way to the new idea.
Ciao
PS. A lot of the examples seem to show more often than not how corrupting politics and social norms are for science
a whole division at NASA devoted to stopping cross-planentary contamination. Remember that little episode of downing the Galileo probe into Juptiter *just* in case it might end on Europa.
One of the main problems now is the lack of funds for such programs, esp for probes we send out of Earth. On the other hand, any probe returning from Mars will be heavily guaranteed - not just for safety reasons but for scientific ones as well.
BTW, the chances of Martian life surviving on Earth is going to be close to nil since the reducing atmosphere will oxidize anything that hasn't already had a few billion years evolutionary head start to protect themselves from it. [Yes, I know it won't be zero.] And Mars doesn't look like it had enough oxygen in it's atmosphere to effect evolution anytime in it's history.
The number of people that have broadband will increase (just like when the iPod first came out - a very narrowband of people could make use of it...now...well you know that story.)
More interestingly is that of the H.264/AVC codec. It would suite downloading mpegs very nicely thankyou.
Foreign media has talked about how (some) outsider election inspectors have been physically thrown-out of (some) polling booths. I won't say which side is doing this....But anyway any firsthand experience of a DMC or GOP groupie hassling anyone above and beyond the normal checks for voter registration checking.
I just ordered an imac g5 and the graphics card is laughable. But i do have my xbox and am looking forward to halo 2 playing with my friends. In fact i now never play games on a PC and am very happy with my xbox and even happier with my iMac purchase. By not making one machine try and do both i think i'm happier than spending the same money on a gee whiz PC with the best GC and then having to deal with windows and the constant hum of the fans since all my money is tied up in this machine. So i guess people are right when they talk about getting the right tools for the right job.
Also playing games should be done on a sofa/couch and not at a desk:)
it was on BBC's homepage. I don't think the BBC is some sort of Mac fan boy. I presume that this is just some impressive numbers and its done with Macs.
That says something noble about humans in a world that is too often filled with the mundane and the tragic.
Amen to that brother!
My won 2 cents worth into this discussion is that sometime we don't know what the path to peace is. Maybe sending a spacecraft to investigate the moons of Saturn has no relevance but history shows us that such thinking is just plain wrong in large enough time scales (though long enough times scales can turn good into evil and vice-versa - but that's another post). I mean without some guy really getting into measuring the rate of acceleration of a ball down a inclined plan most of us wouldn't be living where we are or eating what we do. Try and predict globalisation with that simple fact as your starting point!
I watch it 1:30am on a friday or saturday on CNNi in europe. I have personally been brought up on political satire and find it essential to my well being: Not the Nine O'clocl news; Splitting Image; Have I got news for you; and a large number of impersonation shows.
I don't know what this "fake news" is. Maybe Americans aren't use to satire or maybe this is the mainstream media's reaction to the power of satire. But Jon Stewart - from my perspective - continues this long line of satire tradition. The fact that the Crossfire team can't understand this just shows how right Stawart was.
In fact the whole waste of space that Crossfire is was demonstrated by their attack on why Stewart didn't ask Kerry any hard questions. Talk about lissing the point.
Of course the scientists know the assumptions that their models are based on. They understand those assumptions more than anyone. Models are not just used so scientists can say "hey aren't we smart" they're also used to test the theories they're based on and if the data doesn't match the model then back to the drawing board they go. The fact that models are simplified is down to both theoretical non-understanding and computational and mathematical power (not only are they hard to model some of those equations are just plain hard to solve precisely).
When you deal in a limited world you work with what you have.
Slashdot Mirror
Ciao
Maybe they could do a film, within a film sort fo thing.
Ciao
Ciao
(Of course, this isn't on the same level : knowing about the $500 dollar Mac doesn't stop me buying it..but what the hey..analogy city is where I live)
Ciao
But I agree. I think by this time next year Actionscript would be robust enough and mature enough to be as good to program in as any other high-end language. Since I'm a big believer in one frame movies calling a mass of actionscript files it would be great to have a code friendlier version of the flash ide though. Maybe there's an Eclipse plugin around somewhere.
Ciao
Ciao
Apart from the (funny) scarcasm the poster is true. All of the above are theories, whether we like it not, but at the same time there's nothin' wrong with that. (Another nice example is "The Laws Of Gravity" not a law, still just a theory, but historically such ideas were called laws - well it was the beginning of modern science).
Ciao
Ciao
ciao
Anyway, maybe this might backfire and the EU will force the European equivalents of the RIAA to standardise over the whole EU. Who knows?
ciao
All of the above examples shows that science works in the long run AND that it's impossible to see which ones are right and which ones are wrong AT THE PRESENT TIME without anything better than the concensus to tell them apart.
Want to show how many things the consensus got right? No. That would ruin the argument. In fact, I would even say that the concensus has about 60-80% of things right. The above examples are just some of the howlers - not the norm!
In this weeks New Scientist (hard copy only) you can read the antithesis of Crichton's piece by Simon Singh. Science pretty much acts like an elastic band, the more you try and pull people into a given camp the more resistant it is and it's at THE MOST RESISTENT just before it gives way to the new idea.
Ciao
PS. A lot of the examples seem to show more often than not how corrupting politics and social norms are for science
One of the main problems now is the lack of funds for such programs, esp for probes we send out of Earth. On the other hand, any probe returning from Mars will be heavily guaranteed - not just for safety reasons but for scientific ones as well.
BTW, the chances of Martian life surviving on Earth is going to be close to nil since the reducing atmosphere will oxidize anything that hasn't already had a few billion years evolutionary head start to protect themselves from it. [Yes, I know it won't be zero.] And Mars doesn't look like it had enough oxygen in it's atmosphere to effect evolution anytime in it's history.
Ciao
A fix would be to get a "shielded" tranformer.
And it's the BBC that's apologising?
More interestingly is that of the H.264/AVC codec. It would suite downloading mpegs very nicely thankyou.
Ciao
Ciao
Ciao
Also playing games should be done on a sofa/couch and not at a desk :)
Ciao
Ciao
Ciao
(Thanks to DNA)
Ciao
My won 2 cents worth into this discussion is that sometime we don't know what the path to peace is. Maybe sending a spacecraft to investigate the moons of Saturn has no relevance but history shows us that such thinking is just plain wrong in large enough time scales (though long enough times scales can turn good into evil and vice-versa - but that's another post). I mean without some guy really getting into measuring the rate of acceleration of a ball down a inclined plan most of us wouldn't be living where we are or eating what we do. Try and predict globalisation with that simple fact as your starting point!
Ciao
Ciao
I don't know what this "fake news" is. Maybe Americans aren't use to satire or maybe this is the mainstream media's reaction to the power of satire. But Jon Stewart - from my perspective - continues this long line of satire tradition. The fact that the Crossfire team can't understand this just shows how right Stawart was.
In fact the whole waste of space that Crossfire is was demonstrated by their attack on why Stewart didn't ask Kerry any hard questions. Talk about lissing the point.
Ciao
Of course the scientists know the assumptions that their models are based on. They understand those assumptions more than anyone. Models are not just used so scientists can say "hey aren't we smart" they're also used to test the theories they're based on and if the data doesn't match the model then back to the drawing board they go. The fact that models are simplified is down to both theoretical non-understanding and computational and mathematical power (not only are they hard to model some of those equations are just plain hard to solve precisely).
When you deal in a limited world you work with what you have.
Ciao