Actually, before Slashdot going Ajax, a moderation would only happen after you pressed the moderate button. That way, if you happened to mis-click on moderation, you could immediately correct it. Nowadays your moderation goes life immediately. No chance to correct your mistake (except for the "nuclear" post-to-undo option).
Usually Venn diagrams use just circles (or other convex round shapes which are topologically equivalent to a circle), not rocks. However, a rock drawn in ASCII art would certainly be interesting.
Well, you cannot rely on matters to be settled in other sciences either. For example, for long time it looked as if Newtonian Physics as base theory were settled once and for all. The only thing which wasn't just a reformulation of it was electrodynamics with its continuous fields, and it didn't really seem to scratch on its fundamentals. And then in 20th century, relativity and quantum mechanics overthrew all the base postulates Newtonian physics was based on, and degraded Newtonian physics to an approximation for high actions, low speeds and low masses.
Children do self-assemble, except for the initial cell.
Then I wasted two decades shoveling raw material in front of and into a couple of them, as well a spending half my waking life acquiring the means to obtain those raw materials?
No. Self-assembly does not mean self-production of the raw materials or energy. Self-assembly only means the self-construction from given materials, using given energy. If computers were self-assembling, you'd e.g. not put more memory in, but you'd put in raw silicon (and other needed raw substances), and your computer would transform that silicon into memory by itself. It would not produce that silicon itself, nor would it produce its own energy out of nothing.
I was not disputing that there may be new contributions to old subjects. I was disputing the claim that a subject which doesn't change in five years doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
Why? I'm no philosopher, but taking an example from math: An article about natural numbers isn't likely to get outdated in five years, yet any mathematical encyclopedia would be incomplete without it. Likewise, a physics encyclopedia would certainly include Kepler's laws, but nothing new will likely be found out about them in the next five years. I don't see why such subjects should not exist in philosophy.
If it's a translation, it should have the same meaning as thew original sentence. So why should it matter if people answer to the original sentence or to the translation?
Our intuition tells us that there "could have been" Aliens. If our intuition is true, *how* can it be true, given that i) there are no Aliens in existence, and ii) there are no situations or evolutionary pressures which could have caused any actual organism to evolve into an Alien?
IMHO the answer is very simple: Because, as far as we know, there is no reason why there could not have been Aliens. Indeed, "there could have been Aliens" is nothing more than a concise form of saying that such a reason doesn't exist.
But what if an article happens to be just as accurate after the five years as it was before? Do they have to make arbitrary changes just to comply with the formal rules?
Note that arXiv is not peer reviewed (except for a minimal sanity check). However, most articles sent to arXiv are also sent to traditional journals where they get peer review, and if a paper gets accepted in such a journal, generally you'll find a journal reference in arXiv.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, before Slashdot going Ajax, a moderation would only happen after you pressed the moderate button. That way, if you happened to mis-click on moderation, you could immediately correct it. Nowadays your moderation goes life immediately. No chance to correct your mistake (except for the "nuclear" post-to-undo option).
WTF is soul food? Never even heard of that. :-)
Maybe instead of eating the meat of animals, they are eating their souls?
Usually Venn diagrams use just circles (or other convex round shapes which are topologically equivalent to a circle), not rocks.
However, a rock drawn in ASCII art would certainly be interesting.
SCNR
Except that nowadays most women will use contraceptives. Especially those available for promiscuous men.
Well, you cannot rely on matters to be settled in other sciences either. For example, for long time it looked as if Newtonian Physics as base theory were settled once and for all. The only thing which wasn't just a reformulation of it was electrodynamics with its continuous fields, and it didn't really seem to scratch on its fundamentals. And then in 20th century, relativity and quantum mechanics overthrew all the base postulates Newtonian physics was based on, and degraded Newtonian physics to an approximation for high actions, low speeds and low masses.
Don't worry. There's still no sign of common sense in the European Commission. The EP can afford common sense because they have so little power.
Obviously you missed the real end (you know, the one they show after all the names passed, and the projector was switched off for five minutes). :-)
Adam and Eve? So the movie will contain nudity? :-)
Children do self-assemble, except for the initial cell.
Then I wasted two decades shoveling raw material in front of and into a couple of them, as well a spending half my waking life acquiring the means to obtain those raw materials?
No. Self-assembly does not mean self-production of the raw materials or energy. Self-assembly only means the self-construction from given materials, using given energy. If computers were self-assembling, you'd e.g. not put more memory in, but you'd put in raw silicon (and other needed raw substances), and your computer would transform that silicon into memory by itself. It would not produce that silicon itself, nor would it produce its own energy out of nothing.
I was not disputing that there may be new contributions to old subjects. I was disputing the claim that a subject which doesn't change in five years doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
... and an apple or it didn't happen.
Macintosh, iPhone or iPad?
Why? I'm no philosopher, but taking an example from math: An article about natural numbers isn't likely to get outdated in five years, yet any mathematical encyclopedia would be incomplete without it. Likewise, a physics encyclopedia would certainly include Kepler's laws, but nothing new will likely be found out about them in the next five years. I don't see why such subjects should not exist in philosophy.
If it's a translation, it should have the same meaning as thew original sentence. So why should it matter if people answer to the original sentence or to the translation?
Is Austin Powers empirically testable?
Bah, I've got a +5 battle mace annihilation operator. Oh, and I have my own Hilbert space to hide in.
Our intuition tells us that there "could have been" Aliens. If our intuition is true, *how* can it be true, given that i) there are no Aliens in existence, and ii) there are no situations or evolutionary pressures which could have caused any actual organism to evolve into an Alien?
IMHO the answer is very simple: Because, as far as we know, there is no reason why there could not have been Aliens. Indeed, "there could have been Aliens" is nothing more than a concise form of saying that such a reason doesn't exist.
The Golden Rule? You mean, "Who has the gold, makes the rules?" :-)
Yes, people contribute to Wikipedia until their negative experience with editing it surpasses their enthusiasm.
But what if an article happens to be just as accurate after the five years as it was before? Do they have to make arbitrary changes just to comply with the formal rules?
Note that arXiv is not peer reviewed (except for a minimal sanity check). However, most articles sent to arXiv are also sent to traditional journals where they get peer review, and if a paper gets accepted in such a journal, generally you'll find a journal reference in arXiv.
I'd expect that the main use for quantum computers will be to simulate quantum systems.
Unless you're running a Beowulf cluster emulator on them, of course.
SCNR
Just add a rule that pilots are not allowed to get ill on the airplane. If he gets ill anyway, it's a pilot error.
Children do self-assemble, except for the initial cell.