"Religious experiments are banned in advanced technical civilizations, for good reasons."
If you want to do some religious experiments, go for it. Unless you happen to live in an oppressive religious state, you should be fine. Unless you want to cut open a living person to find that soul, of course.
Bacteria like eating things that can be processed to release energy. Gray goo would likewise have to eat things that can be processed to release energy. Even if the bacteria didn't eat the goo, they would compete. And bacteria are really good at competing.
There shouldn't be. If there's a reason to pat down anyone, a policy granting exceptions to children is dangerous and irresponsible. A serious security hole. In reality, there isn't much reason to pat down anybody, except maybe in very specific circumstances, and that policy is an indication that the whole pat down thing, for anybody of any age, is arbitrary, symbolic, misguided and/or dishonest.
Yes. Physicists are not civil or mechanical engineers. Computer scientists are not software engineers. They're separate disciplines, and shouldn't be conflated. But for some reason people like to do it when talking about CS.
Think of it this way - first year physics students and first year engineering students both learn Newtonian mechanics. The civil engineering students then go on to learn about solving real world problems using Newtonian mechanics. The physics students learn other things, like relativity and quantum mechanics, and also learn about doing research to advance our knowledge of physics.
Computer science and software engineering students both start learning things like data structures and common algorithms for doing things like sorting. Software engineers then concentrate on using these things to solve real world problems. CS students go on to learn other things like algorithm optimization, more advanced math, quantum computing algorithms, and also learn about doing research to advance our knowledge of computer science.
There's no reason why you'd think a physicist should be able to design and build a bridge. He's familiar with the basic concepts, but not the detailed application. The engineer, on the other hand, probably doesn't have a detailed knowledge of advanced physics, nor the details of how to do physics research.
Likewise, a computer scientist is familiar with the data structures and algorithms that a software engineer uses, but not the details of actually designing and writing large programs. The software engineer probably doesn't have a good knowledge of advanced CS concepts, nor would you expect him to know a lot about doing CS research - developing new algorithms, for example.
Not really. Remember, the less probable you make life in the universe, the MORE special you make us. Everything we learn (yes, scientifically) suggests that we are not at all special. It may be that there is some absolute showstopper we haven't discovered yet, but all of the scientific evidence we have shows that the conditions necessary for life are common. We have evidence that there are LOTS of planets of the right size, mass and composition in the right places. What we know of physics suggests many or most of those planets should have acceptable physical conditions. Everything we know of abiogenesis suggests that it's likely to happen routinely given the right physical conditions. And all our scientific knowledge of evolution says that it will happen, given self replicating chemical assemblies.
So all the scientific evidence says that we're nothing special, and therefore life is not improbable.
Note that the existence of intelligent life contemporary with ourselves has MUCH less evidence either way. Intelligence to a greater or lesser degree seems to be a common invention of evolution, but we don't know anything about how intelligent species stick around. The article itself is talking mostly about intelligent life.
Take away the iPod and iPhone and Apple would be one of the bigger PC manufacturers and sell a whole mess of iPads. Both product lines are the most profitable in the business.
Take away Office and Windows and Microsoft would be bankrupt.
Science isn't on your side. There are a LOT of rocky planets around, lots in habitable zones, and almost certainly lots with liquid water. Intelligence is one of the last areas where we don't have much data. We don't know how long intelligent life is likely to persist, or in what form.
Except that for there to be a lot of life around the odds can be terrible. In order for us to be the only ones, or nearly so, the odds have to be extraordinarily, next to impossibly bad.
Computer science isn't about computers. It's about computing. Computer science is not computer or software engineering.
Many computer science departments teach some elements of software and computer engineering, and I've heard many in the US are actually software engineering departments, but that's not what CS actually is.
Yes, computer science itself is very mathematical, but so is physics.
He's absolutely right (at least, his first sentence is - he goes downhill from there). The fact that the girl was four years old is irrelevant. If there's an actual reason to pat down anyone, you also have to do the children they're with, grandma in her wheel chair, everybody.
Since there isn't an actual reason to pat down anyway, the TSA shouldn't be performing an unnecessary, pointless and invasive procedure on anyone.
Also, the agent is a dick for screaming at anyone objecting to being patted down. Especially a little kid.
You're absolutely correct. Except you've forgotten the next step: natural selection causes a quick end to the reduced function ones, and amplifies the increased function ones.
Mutation DOES increase "disorder" and decrease the mean fitness of a population, if left to itself. When paired with natural selection, the opposite happens - mutation introduces variation and natural selection selects only the fitter side of the distribution.
Funny how in your post you basically describe how to test the hypothesis with a simulation... yet you obviously haven't done the simulation.
No question, it's (usually) not GOOD science fiction, but human drama and science fiction aren't two distinct concepts. Star Trek is science fiction, with the science part poorly done.
That's why I said unlikely. There's not much flexibility for a given prion, and because infection rates are so low, there's not much opportunity either.
Also, this story doesn't mean BSE is endemic. The idea is that this cow got sick from a random misfolded protein.
The "refutation" you link to is refuting Svensmark's claims about anthropogenic global warming. The current article is about climate change that happened a long time before there were humans, thus is completely unrelated to anthropogenic global warming. If you're wondering, Svensmark's hypothesis about cosmic rays and clouds (and thus climate) have held up pretty well in both his own studies and independent studies by groups including some at CERN. I think he's probably overreached by claiming that cosmic rays explain current warming, but it's quite reasonable that they play a role, and may have played a very significant role in the past.
Try again. The solar system's passes through the galactic plane do not line up with mass extinction events very well. And what do you mean "the same astronomical model?" The solar system being in a star forming region and passing through the galactic plane are not the same thing.
"80s/90s/00s Star Trek was at its core a human drama, just in the context of science fiction."
Most of the hard SF authors define science fiction as a human story in the context of some future world. So you can simplify your sentence to "Star Trek was at it's core science fiction."
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it.
"Religious experiments are banned in advanced technical civilizations, for good reasons."
If you want to do some religious experiments, go for it. Unless you happen to live in an oppressive religious state, you should be fine. Unless you want to cut open a living person to find that soul, of course.
Banned? And you got modded up??
Bacteria like eating things that can be processed to release energy. Gray goo would likewise have to eat things that can be processed to release energy. Even if the bacteria didn't eat the goo, they would compete. And bacteria are really good at competing.
Because we can't reliably detect unknown life on THIS planet with an optical microscope?
Fortunately they're doing more than one experiment.
There shouldn't be. If there's a reason to pat down anyone, a policy granting exceptions to children is dangerous and irresponsible. A serious security hole. In reality, there isn't much reason to pat down anybody, except maybe in very specific circumstances, and that policy is an indication that the whole pat down thing, for anybody of any age, is arbitrary, symbolic, misguided and/or dishonest.
Yes. Physicists are not civil or mechanical engineers. Computer scientists are not software engineers. They're separate disciplines, and shouldn't be conflated. But for some reason people like to do it when talking about CS.
Think of it this way - first year physics students and first year engineering students both learn Newtonian mechanics. The civil engineering students then go on to learn about solving real world problems using Newtonian mechanics. The physics students learn other things, like relativity and quantum mechanics, and also learn about doing research to advance our knowledge of physics.
Computer science and software engineering students both start learning things like data structures and common algorithms for doing things like sorting. Software engineers then concentrate on using these things to solve real world problems. CS students go on to learn other things like algorithm optimization, more advanced math, quantum computing algorithms, and also learn about doing research to advance our knowledge of computer science.
There's no reason why you'd think a physicist should be able to design and build a bridge. He's familiar with the basic concepts, but not the detailed application. The engineer, on the other hand, probably doesn't have a detailed knowledge of advanced physics, nor the details of how to do physics research.
Likewise, a computer scientist is familiar with the data structures and algorithms that a software engineer uses, but not the details of actually designing and writing large programs. The software engineer probably doesn't have a good knowledge of advanced CS concepts, nor would you expect him to know a lot about doing CS research - developing new algorithms, for example.
"both assumptions not based on science."
Not really. Remember, the less probable you make life in the universe, the MORE special you make us. Everything we learn (yes, scientifically) suggests that we are not at all special. It may be that there is some absolute showstopper we haven't discovered yet, but all of the scientific evidence we have shows that the conditions necessary for life are common. We have evidence that there are LOTS of planets of the right size, mass and composition in the right places. What we know of physics suggests many or most of those planets should have acceptable physical conditions. Everything we know of abiogenesis suggests that it's likely to happen routinely given the right physical conditions. And all our scientific knowledge of evolution says that it will happen, given self replicating chemical assemblies.
So all the scientific evidence says that we're nothing special, and therefore life is not improbable.
Note that the existence of intelligent life contemporary with ourselves has MUCH less evidence either way. Intelligence to a greater or lesser degree seems to be a common invention of evolution, but we don't know anything about how intelligent species stick around. The article itself is talking mostly about intelligent life.
Don't forget, most of those users already have Facebook accounts.
And what exactly are those $30 users going to pay for?
This "buying users" thing is stupid, except in very limited circumstances. Users are earned, not purchased. Just like customers.
Take away the iPod and iPhone and Apple would be one of the bigger PC manufacturers and sell a whole mess of iPads. Both product lines are the most profitable in the business.
Take away Office and Windows and Microsoft would be bankrupt.
They made the startling discovery that a single sample doesn't provide much statistical evidence. Shocking.
Why do some people think that putting "Bayesian" in an abstract is like putting "on the Internet" in a patent?
Actually, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not.
If it is, there are fun things out tree like an infinite number of earths. Not earth-like planets but literal earths, with exact copies of you and I.
Science isn't on your side. There are a LOT of rocky planets around, lots in habitable zones, and almost certainly lots with liquid water. Intelligence is one of the last areas where we don't have much data. We don't know how long intelligent life is likely to persist, or in what form.
Except that for there to be a lot of life around the odds can be terrible. In order for us to be the only ones, or nearly so, the odds have to be extraordinarily, next to impossibly bad.
Computer science isn't about computers. It's about computing. Computer science is not computer or software engineering.
Many computer science departments teach some elements of software and computer engineering, and I've heard many in the US are actually software engineering departments, but that's not what CS actually is.
Yes, computer science itself is very mathematical, but so is physics.
He's absolutely right (at least, his first sentence is - he goes downhill from there). The fact that the girl was four years old is irrelevant. If there's an actual reason to pat down anyone, you also have to do the children they're with, grandma in her wheel chair, everybody.
Since there isn't an actual reason to pat down anyway, the TSA shouldn't be performing an unnecessary, pointless and invasive procedure on anyone.
Also, the agent is a dick for screaming at anyone objecting to being patted down. Especially a little kid.
You're absolutely correct. Except you've forgotten the next step: natural selection causes a quick end to the reduced function ones, and amplifies the increased function ones.
Mutation DOES increase "disorder" and decrease the mean fitness of a population, if left to itself. When paired with natural selection, the opposite happens - mutation introduces variation and natural selection selects only the fitter side of the distribution.
Funny how in your post you basically describe how to test the hypothesis with a simulation... yet you obviously haven't done the simulation.
Beating the ELECTRICAL power input to optical power output ratio of 1:1.
No question, it's (usually) not GOOD science fiction, but human drama and science fiction aren't two distinct concepts. Star Trek is science fiction, with the science part poorly done.
That's why I said unlikely. There's not much flexibility for a given prion, and because infection rates are so low, there's not much opportunity either.
Also, this story doesn't mean BSE is endemic. The idea is that this cow got sick from a random misfolded protein.
What do you find unscientific about that quote?
The "refutation" you link to is refuting Svensmark's claims about anthropogenic global warming. The current article is about climate change that happened a long time before there were humans, thus is completely unrelated to anthropogenic global warming. If you're wondering, Svensmark's hypothesis about cosmic rays and clouds (and thus climate) have held up pretty well in both his own studies and independent studies by groups including some at CERN. I think he's probably overreached by claiming that cosmic rays explain current warming, but it's quite reasonable that they play a role, and may have played a very significant role in the past.
Try again. The solar system's passes through the galactic plane do not line up with mass extinction events very well. And what do you mean "the same astronomical model?" The solar system being in a star forming region and passing through the galactic plane are not the same thing.
Hey, be fair. It's a Slashdotter backed up by a half dozen or so cranks.
"80s/90s/00s Star Trek was at its core a human drama, just in the context of science fiction."
Most of the hard SF authors define science fiction as a human story in the context of some future world. So you can simplify your sentence to "Star Trek was at it's core science fiction."
Thanks. Your startling ignorance spawned some really funny comments.