Oh heavens, if you want to make an animated movie you have to either a) come up with your own characters or b) license the use of existing ones from whoever owns them.
The regulatory bodies didn't say that Watchmen couldn't be made, or shown. They just said that it deserved an R rating. People decided not to see it based on either that rating (they didn't want their kids to see it) and what the movie was about.
If "the regulatory bodies" had given it a G rating you'd just have a lot of parents upset, which is worse.
Don't blame ratings agencies because nobody went to see a movie.
I'd suggest not doing it in downtown London. Although, it's probably pretty hard to figure out who it was given a zillion people in an area with laptops anyway.
Sure. So what? If you don't want conjecture then read a textbook on relativity. A lot of people like to get glimpses of the bleeding edge, not the tested-for-the-last-century edge.
That's pretty much it. There is no word for an "accepted" theory, which is probably a good thing since it emphasizes that any theory can be deposed at any time. You could maybe add "conjecture" or "shit we thought of while we were drunk one day" which tends to be interesting but not developed to the point where it is a falsifiable theory. The multiverse idea and, if you're being critical, string theory, could be in this category. Being conjecture isn't a slight - it's very important. All theories start as conjecture. It's the starting point of science, and an absolutely required step.
Use examples. It seems if you just define the words, someone will come along and argue with you. And unfortunately bad definitions are all over the place, so there are even "references."
My theory of science prof in grad school had a fantastic lecture about theories, hypotheses and the different approaches to doing science. Unfortunately it was a while ago and I'm pretty sure everything was on overheads so it's not likely to be on the Internet anywhere.
One of the problems is that theory and hypothesis are concepts that were named as the idea of science itself was being developed so, like a lot of historical definitions, they're a little fuzzy and don't have as simple a relationship to each other as many people would like.
As a working scientist I can tell you how I usually see science happen though. You start with one or more theories (when there are two competing theories you've got a golden opportunity). These may be fairly accepted theories, or they may be something you and your buddies cooked up over beers. Thinking about the theory produces a hypothesis. Some people like their hypotheses to be questions, others prefer they be statements which can be shown to be likely true or false.
So here's an example. The disease multiple sclerosis is characterized by the development of brain lesions where the insulating myelin sheath around nerve axons is destroyed. It turns out that the myelin can then be repaired (partially). Histographic evidence from autopsy can be interpreted to suggest that some lesions remyelinate and others don't, for some reason. By examining non-invasive imaging data, perhaps I come up with the idea (a theory) that remyelination ALWAYS happens, but that it's incomplete. Over several demyelination/remyelination cycles the amount of myelin decreases, until you end up with a lesion that is essentially permanently demyelinated.
Both of those theories predict the histographic evidence. But imaging might just be able to distinguish, because you can see what's happening at more than just one point in time. So we might develop a hypothesis based on the two theories:
Hypothesis 1: By six months after the appearance of a new lesion, imaging will indicate that the tissue has remyelinated.
Hypothesis 2: Lesions that have already experienced a demyelinating episode will be observed to undergo additional demyelinating episodes.
Hypothesis 3: Tissue that undergoes demyelination will remyelinate to a level that is less than the pre-demyelination level, whether the tissue is demyelinating for the first time or a successive time.
The hypotheses are basically predictions made by the second theory. If they're supported by the data, we've developed evidence for the second theory (and evidence against the first). If the hypotheses are not supported, then we have found evidence for the first theory over the second.
Never say never. Parts of QM, relativity, evolution and pretty much every other theory we hold dear took much the same criticism until someone figured out clever ways to test them.
Have you ever read any of his books? I haven't read the latest one, but the others are quite reasonable about presenting string theory as a work in progress.
Horan is also, as he points out himself, kind of cranky (in the bitter way, not the crazy way). I haven't read Greene's latest book, but his others cover established theory (relativity and QM) quite well, and then introduce string theory as something very much in development. I doubt very much his latest book departs significantly from that formula, as the label "pseudoscience" would require.
Speculation is an important part of science, despite what Horgan thinks. The difference is that scientists don't claim their speculation is fact, but merely an interesting idea that perhaps should be studied further.
The term poppernazi does seem to fit Horgan, and yes, if you allow a little bit of explanation, it is indeed a counter to his arguments.
And it's not the right word. You mean "speculation" or something. A hypothesis does not become a theory when you provide evidence in it's favour. A hypothesis is a specific prediction, frequently motivated by a theory, that can be tested and, if observations support it, may support a theory.
For example: the hypothesis that clocks traveling at different speeds measure the passage of time differently, as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity, was tested by sending one of a pair of atomic clocks around the world on a plane.
If you can get people to the moon you can certainly send a missile there. If someone built a military base on the moon it wouldn't take long before everyone else built missiles that could hit it. And nukes aren't such a big deal on the moon either.
But supposing you did build a base on the moon. If it's supposed to be a military base it's pretty much useless because, as you point out, it's a long way away. There's nothing like launching a nuclear strike and giving your enemy three days to notice and retaliate.
Building a self-sustaining ecosystem is hard. We've never managed to do it, despite several tries, right here on Earth. Doing it on the moon, with the cost of shipping stuff up is MUCH harder. Currently we don't even have the ability to make oxygen on the moon in a sustainable way. Some theories and small scale demonstrations yes, but nothing you'd bet your life on. So as a lifeboat, a moonbase would still have to be self sustaining to be any use, and that's a LONG way away.
Ha, sorry, I actually meant to reply to the guy you replied to.
Guerrillas do very well with supply lines even without tunnels, because they can usually depend on at least some of the populace to help out, and they're independent and sparse enough to make foraging practical. Space battle stations, not so much.
Even if you do occupy the "high ground" it's not worth much if the tunnel rats or a conventional military shoot down your supply rockets or bomb the launch facilities. Mountaintops are high ground too, but armies don't like to fight on them or occupy them.
A base on the moon is pretty useless militarily, is a far worse logistics problem, and would still need to be self sustaining, which is highly unlikely for a long time, if it were to be any use as a species lifeboat.
I said "open source" hardware, not "open source hardware." I realize that's a little misleading. Netgear seems to be claiming that their stuff is open, but the only thing that's remotely open is the software.
Second, Netgear -> Linux. Apple -> Darwin. Again, I realize the way I wrote it is potentially confusing. Hope that clears it up for you.
We may take it then that an army without its baggage train is lost; without provisions it is lost; without bases of supply it is lost. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
I think you missed his point. In order to have a space outpost work in a survival of the species situation after a planet wide disaster, it has to be self sustaining. A regular old dozen cargo flights a day military base isn't going to be much use in that situation, even if it is in space.
The regular military logistics problem with space bases is that the supply line is necessarily very long and tenuous. It's not that hard to disrupt rocket flights and you wouldn't have to do so very long to put a space military base out of operation. It's also an important maxim in the art of warfare for a very long time that you want your supply lines as short and secure as possible.
Android is open, but what many don't realize is that open source software doesn't count for anything unless the hardware to run it on is also open. When you're talking about a smartphone, the network also has to be at least somewhat open as well.
Netgear has shipped "open source" hardware for quite a while, just like Apple. They use Linux (Darwin) which is open source, with some proprietary extensions, and do what they can to prevent you from updating or changing the open or the closed parts.
The prototype didn't do so well, but there are an awful lot of the production model around. All those silver notebooks with glowing apples on the cover.
"the author argues that a closed locked in product like you describe can only go so far before the open alternatives arise and overtake it."
Yeah, problem is, it hasn't, ever, actually happened, despite lots and lots of opportunities. Netgear itself isn't exactly known for their products being (purposely) open.
There were a few. Really widespread. I'm afraid to walk around with a Bluetooth device. Why, you just turn one on and all of a sudden people are connecting to it all over the place.
Oh wait, no they're not.
Any NFC phone will of course ask you for confirmation before completing a payment. The protocol itself might be more or less secure, but it's no more or less problematic than a debit or credit card.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh heavens, if you want to make an animated movie you have to either a) come up with your own characters or b) license the use of existing ones from whoever owns them.
The regulatory bodies didn't say that Watchmen couldn't be made, or shown. They just said that it deserved an R rating. People decided not to see it based on either that rating (they didn't want their kids to see it) and what the movie was about.
If "the regulatory bodies" had given it a G rating you'd just have a lot of parents upset, which is worse.
Don't blame ratings agencies because nobody went to see a movie.
I'm sure lots of publishers will. And ALSO have iOS apps. You know, for all those millions of people who iOS devices.
I'd suggest not doing it in downtown London. Although, it's probably pretty hard to figure out who it was given a zillion people in an area with laptops anyway.
CCTVs aren't magic. Not even in the UK.
"Used" in the context of this article implies used reasonably regularly for some purpose other than historical interest.
Viking ship replicas are occasionally rebuilt and sailed around for a bit as well, but you wouldn't say that they're used today.
Sure. So what? If you don't want conjecture then read a textbook on relativity. A lot of people like to get glimpses of the bleeding edge, not the tested-for-the-last-century edge.
"Bearable" is entirely your own bias.
That's pretty much it. There is no word for an "accepted" theory, which is probably a good thing since it emphasizes that any theory can be deposed at any time. You could maybe add "conjecture" or "shit we thought of while we were drunk one day" which tends to be interesting but not developed to the point where it is a falsifiable theory. The multiverse idea and, if you're being critical, string theory, could be in this category. Being conjecture isn't a slight - it's very important. All theories start as conjecture. It's the starting point of science, and an absolutely required step.
Use examples. It seems if you just define the words, someone will come along and argue with you. And unfortunately bad definitions are all over the place, so there are even "references."
My theory of science prof in grad school had a fantastic lecture about theories, hypotheses and the different approaches to doing science. Unfortunately it was a while ago and I'm pretty sure everything was on overheads so it's not likely to be on the Internet anywhere.
One of the problems is that theory and hypothesis are concepts that were named as the idea of science itself was being developed so, like a lot of historical definitions, they're a little fuzzy and don't have as simple a relationship to each other as many people would like.
As a working scientist I can tell you how I usually see science happen though. You start with one or more theories (when there are two competing theories you've got a golden opportunity). These may be fairly accepted theories, or they may be something you and your buddies cooked up over beers. Thinking about the theory produces a hypothesis. Some people like their hypotheses to be questions, others prefer they be statements which can be shown to be likely true or false.
So here's an example. The disease multiple sclerosis is characterized by the development of brain lesions where the insulating myelin sheath around nerve axons is destroyed. It turns out that the myelin can then be repaired (partially). Histographic evidence from autopsy can be interpreted to suggest that some lesions remyelinate and others don't, for some reason. By examining non-invasive imaging data, perhaps I come up with the idea (a theory) that remyelination ALWAYS happens, but that it's incomplete. Over several demyelination/remyelination cycles the amount of myelin decreases, until you end up with a lesion that is essentially permanently demyelinated.
Both of those theories predict the histographic evidence. But imaging might just be able to distinguish, because you can see what's happening at more than just one point in time. So we might develop a hypothesis based on the two theories:
Hypothesis 1: By six months after the appearance of a new lesion, imaging will indicate that the tissue has remyelinated.
Hypothesis 2: Lesions that have already experienced a demyelinating episode will be observed to undergo additional demyelinating episodes.
Hypothesis 3: Tissue that undergoes demyelination will remyelinate to a level that is less than the pre-demyelination level, whether the tissue is demyelinating for the first time or a successive time.
The hypotheses are basically predictions made by the second theory. If they're supported by the data, we've developed evidence for the second theory (and evidence against the first). If the hypotheses are not supported, then we have found evidence for the first theory over the second.
Never say never. Parts of QM, relativity, evolution and pretty much every other theory we hold dear took much the same criticism until someone figured out clever ways to test them.
Have you ever read any of his books? I haven't read the latest one, but the others are quite reasonable about presenting string theory as a work in progress.
Mod parent up.
Horan is also, as he points out himself, kind of cranky (in the bitter way, not the crazy way). I haven't read Greene's latest book, but his others cover established theory (relativity and QM) quite well, and then introduce string theory as something very much in development. I doubt very much his latest book departs significantly from that formula, as the label "pseudoscience" would require.
Speculation is an important part of science, despite what Horgan thinks. The difference is that scientists don't claim their speculation is fact, but merely an interesting idea that perhaps should be studied further.
The term poppernazi does seem to fit Horgan, and yes, if you allow a little bit of explanation, it is indeed a counter to his arguments.
And it's not the right word. You mean "speculation" or something. A hypothesis does not become a theory when you provide evidence in it's favour. A hypothesis is a specific prediction, frequently motivated by a theory, that can be tested and, if observations support it, may support a theory.
For example: the hypothesis that clocks traveling at different speeds measure the passage of time differently, as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity, was tested by sending one of a pair of atomic clocks around the world on a plane.
I didn't see a straight Bob, but there are BobBell, BobbieVaile, BobbyWilliams, BobGent, BobHawkes, BobHope, BobOne and BobRoss.
If you can get people to the moon you can certainly send a missile there. If someone built a military base on the moon it wouldn't take long before everyone else built missiles that could hit it. And nukes aren't such a big deal on the moon either.
But supposing you did build a base on the moon. If it's supposed to be a military base it's pretty much useless because, as you point out, it's a long way away. There's nothing like launching a nuclear strike and giving your enemy three days to notice and retaliate.
Building a self-sustaining ecosystem is hard. We've never managed to do it, despite several tries, right here on Earth. Doing it on the moon, with the cost of shipping stuff up is MUCH harder. Currently we don't even have the ability to make oxygen on the moon in a sustainable way. Some theories and small scale demonstrations yes, but nothing you'd bet your life on. So as a lifeboat, a moonbase would still have to be self sustaining to be any use, and that's a LONG way away.
Ha, sorry, I actually meant to reply to the guy you replied to.
Guerrillas do very well with supply lines even without tunnels, because they can usually depend on at least some of the populace to help out, and they're independent and sparse enough to make foraging practical. Space battle stations, not so much.
Even if you do occupy the "high ground" it's not worth much if the tunnel rats or a conventional military shoot down your supply rockets or bomb the launch facilities. Mountaintops are high ground too, but armies don't like to fight on them or occupy them.
A base on the moon is pretty useless militarily, is a far worse logistics problem, and would still need to be self sustaining, which is highly unlikely for a long time, if it were to be any use as a species lifeboat.
I said "open source" hardware, not "open source hardware." I realize that's a little misleading. Netgear seems to be claiming that their stuff is open, but the only thing that's remotely open is the software.
Second, Netgear -> Linux. Apple -> Darwin. Again, I realize the way I wrote it is potentially confusing. Hope that clears it up for you.
We may take it then that an army without its baggage train is lost; without provisions it is lost; without bases of supply it is lost. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
I think you missed his point. In order to have a space outpost work in a survival of the species situation after a planet wide disaster, it has to be self sustaining. A regular old dozen cargo flights a day military base isn't going to be much use in that situation, even if it is in space.
The regular military logistics problem with space bases is that the supply line is necessarily very long and tenuous. It's not that hard to disrupt rocket flights and you wouldn't have to do so very long to put a space military base out of operation. It's also an important maxim in the art of warfare for a very long time that you want your supply lines as short and secure as possible.
Android is open, but what many don't realize is that open source software doesn't count for anything unless the hardware to run it on is also open. When you're talking about a smartphone, the network also has to be at least somewhat open as well.
Netgear has shipped "open source" hardware for quite a while, just like Apple. They use Linux (Darwin) which is open source, with some proprietary extensions, and do what they can to prevent you from updating or changing the open or the closed parts.
Pot, kettle.
The prototype didn't do so well, but there are an awful lot of the production model around. All those silver notebooks with glowing apples on the cover.
"the author argues that a closed locked in product like you describe can only go so far before the open alternatives arise and overtake it."
Yeah, problem is, it hasn't, ever, actually happened, despite lots and lots of opportunities. Netgear itself isn't exactly known for their products being (purposely) open.
Humans really hate personification. We definitely don't do it constantly to pretty much any plant, animal or object.
There were a few. Really widespread. I'm afraid to walk around with a Bluetooth device. Why, you just turn one on and all of a sudden people are connecting to it all over the place.
Oh wait, no they're not.
Any NFC phone will of course ask you for confirmation before completing a payment. The protocol itself might be more or less secure, but it's no more or less problematic than a debit or credit card.
Yup, I'm sure they'll set it up so that Joe Random can just walk by and charge you a thousand dollars without you knowing it.
After all, that's just the way Bluetooth pairing works. Isn't it?