" In physics, the simpler answers tend to be the correct ones." OK, yes, historically, this has held true. But the question I'm asking is, why are we taking occam's razor as an investigating principle? So far, I have heard nothing scientific explaining why natural laws would be simple or elegant. It seems to me that taking this stance is just in our own interests -- difficult math problems take more work, so why not just keep it simple?
I guess it boils down to whether you think the laws described by physics *actually are* reality, or if the mathematics are just a *model* of the real world. If you believe science is revealing the actual mathematical machinery of reality, then whether or not we should assume that the machinery is simple-and-elegant becomes a major issue. OTOH, if we are just building models that are good enough approximations for the work we want to do, then it's best to keep the models simple because it's easier to work with.
"The reason is that simple explanations are easier to falsify. If something is wrong with a simple theory it is easier to find that fault - if it exists."
So, should I chalk this up to "We don't like to do hard [math] problems"? Yes, it's easier for us to work with, but again, I don't see that as evidence why natural laws should be simple or elegant.
This has always struck me as an anthropocentric, 'faith-based' element in modern physics. Why should the universe be simple and elegant? Because it's 'beautiful'? Because we don't like doing hard math problems?
I'm not against it, but it seems to be taken on faith that the universe should be simple and elegant. So far the track record is pretty good, but that doesn't mean that it's a scientific belief. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a simple-and-elegant universe; I just haven't heard any scientific explanation why it should be so.
Not really. I think about 16 years old is normally an acceptable age of a woman for a man to be attracted to. Remeber, about 100 years ago, most kids were getting married around age 15. Dying at 30 moves things along little faster.
Anyway, as long as the woman is physically mature, I don't think the guy is a pedophile, and the obsession doesn't seem harmful to society -- as long as he can wait two years.
I thought that clients reported hashes of chunks received from others back up to the tracker, so that it was the tracker's decision whether or not a particular client was seeding bad data?
"Wikipedia is the opposite of knowledge: it's based on majority rule. Wikipedia in 1805 would have described the "wonders of the African Ape-Man and his Ability to Pick Cotton." After all, the majority believed that it was true."
Well, then we're screwed as far as knowledge. Even scientific knowledge of 1805 was incredibly racist and sexist by today's standards (not to mention out-and-out wrong about a lot of other things, including physics). So, your criticism of Wikipedia is just as apt for other knowledge ventures of the human race, even to this day. Hopefully, like science, Wikipedia will develop functional correction mechanisms, if they aren't in place already.
*You* won't download 300 fake chunks, the entire swarm will. So the 'damage' is spread out over the network. Once a participants delivers three bad chunks to anyone on the network, they are blacklisted and get no new referrals. They are essentially shut out at that point -- that IP is now useless for that torrent.
In short, it seems a relatively futile attack. You would have to have a very large zombie net in order to swamp a torrent, so to speak.
"You have failed to detail what the holes are, so therefore your argument is no argument at all. "
I pointed out that you are missing an entire half of your argument. You start out by saying that the EU/UN are wrong here, and then you never mention any facts regarding the EU again. You fail to complete the path your started. You are saying that I haven't pointed out any holes -- you are correct. I ahve pointed out that you don't *have* any arguments abou the EU -- thus, there are no holes to poke. You are *missing half of your boat* and you are looking at it saying, "I don't see any holes". You are missing the forest for the trees.
"Considering that your own claim to fame is fictional "rag sheet" stories, sir, I'm not certain you're in a position to be claiming expertise in logic battles."
As far as my blog listed in my personal info, I make no claim to fame, and my blog has no bearing on this argument, and has nothing to do with my abilities with logic. You have extremely poor rhetorical technique, and you seem enthusiastic to show it.
The problem is that, for the non-technological masses, the WWW *as it is now* IS the internet.
So when the DNS wars break out and half the internet can't communicate with the other half, people will be wondering why they can't get to their online banking site, or ebay, and why can't those geeks/politicians/coporations get their act together.
Meanwhile, of course, geeks will be installing the latest software to use the internet in new and exciting ways.
It effectively puts us back to 1990, where the internet was something only the incredibly nerdy could use.
No, my argument fulfilled its scope. My argument is simply showing that yours is incomplete. I am not arguing at all about the internet, the US, the UN or the EU. I did a good job.
"You have censured me for having incomplete information, yet you have failed to complete it yourself."
It's not my job to make your argument for you. You did half of your job. Take my criticism and learn, young grasshopper. Enroll in a logic class or something.
Your argument is very sloppy. At the beginning you note that this is a push from the UN and the EU, but then continue on solely in an anti-UN tirade. All of your anti-UN arguments cannot necessarily be applied to the EU, so you are missing about half of what you need to convince someone who disagrees with you.
Do we really need a government, or super-government in charge of this? Can't we have a decentralized network of root servers working together on this co-operatively? If one server or network became consistently unreliable, people would stop using it.
Well, there's still a problem. If the largest name designations are sovereign nations, then a province or state with it's own name would stick out like a sore thumb, especially if its sovereignty were in dispute.
It would be strange to list Alaska or Hawaii along side China, the US, or Germany -- it implies that they are at the same level, when in fact they are part of the US. The same thing goes for map resolution.
Listing Taiwan as anything other than a province of China is an implication of independence to the PRC authorities -- after all, Schizuan isn't listed on its own, is it? Then, what would be the reason for listing Taiwan on its own?
Well, this makes sense. With Gorillas, one dominant male controls a whole harem of females. He doesn't necessarily impregnate them all, but he certainly controls who mates with them. Because male gorillas don't have to compete with one another as far as mating (they only compete in 'tough man' competitions to control harems), they have small penises, testicles, and sperm counts, relative to their promiscuous human and chimpanzee cousins.
In the instance described above, it sounds like the female wanted to ensure that she got the little bit of sperm that the dominant male was producing, and that no other female got it.
Well, which are you going to believe, some folktale passed down from the Roman times, or a trained animal researcher with field notes and perhaps a photograph or two?
BTW has anyone else seen mice emulating a cargo ferry since Roman times? Events such as chimps using grass stalks as termite catching sticks has been well-documented. I've seen footage of it, even.
Well, since they lack opposable thumbs, they won't be able to fill in the little bubbles on the IQ test, so they are therefore demonstrably less intelligent.
Raccoons are very smart and curious, and quickly get bored with tedious tasks. As far as gnawing, the don't really have they dentition for it -- they are omnivores.
Raccoons are very good mechanically, so long as they can reach the thing and get their thumbed hands on it (note: raccoon thumbs are not opposable). They are expert openers when it comes to containers for food and garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
" In physics, the simpler answers tend to be the correct ones." OK, yes, historically, this has held true. But the question I'm asking is, why are we taking occam's razor as an investigating principle? So far, I have heard nothing scientific explaining why natural laws would be simple or elegant. It seems to me that taking this stance is just in our own interests -- difficult math problems take more work, so why not just keep it simple?
I guess it boils down to whether you think the laws described by physics *actually are* reality, or if the mathematics are just a *model* of the real world. If you believe science is revealing the actual mathematical machinery of reality, then whether or not we should assume that the machinery is simple-and-elegant becomes a major issue. OTOH, if we are just building models that are good enough approximations for the work we want to do, then it's best to keep the models simple because it's easier to work with.
"The reason is that simple explanations are easier to falsify. If something is wrong with a simple theory it is easier to find that fault - if it exists."
So, should I chalk this up to "We don't like to do hard [math] problems"? Yes, it's easier for us to work with, but again, I don't see that as evidence why natural laws should be simple or elegant.
This has always struck me as an anthropocentric, 'faith-based' element in modern physics. Why should the universe be simple and elegant? Because it's 'beautiful'? Because we don't like doing hard math problems?
I'm not against it, but it seems to be taken on faith that the universe should be simple and elegant. So far the track record is pretty good, but that doesn't mean that it's a scientific belief. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a simple-and-elegant universe; I just haven't heard any scientific explanation why it should be so.
Not really. I think about 16 years old is normally an acceptable age of a woman for a man to be attracted to. Remeber, about 100 years ago, most kids were getting married around age 15. Dying at 30 moves things along little faster.
Anyway, as long as the woman is physically mature, I don't think the guy is a pedophile, and the obsession doesn't seem harmful to society -- as long as he can wait two years.
I think you have the exec and the henchmen reversed in your dialogue.
Aw, snap!
Yeah... you like it hard, don't you? Don't you?!
I thought that clients reported hashes of chunks received from others back up to the tracker, so that it was the tracker's decision whether or not a particular client was seeding bad data?
"Wikipedia is the opposite of knowledge: it's based on majority rule. Wikipedia in 1805 would have described the "wonders of the African Ape-Man and his Ability to Pick Cotton." After all, the majority believed that it was true."
Well, then we're screwed as far as knowledge. Even scientific knowledge of 1805 was incredibly racist and sexist by today's standards (not to mention out-and-out wrong about a lot of other things, including physics). So, your criticism of Wikipedia is just as apt for other knowledge ventures of the human race, even to this day. Hopefully, like science, Wikipedia will develop functional correction mechanisms, if they aren't in place already.
*You* won't download 300 fake chunks, the entire swarm will. So the 'damage' is spread out over the network. Once a participants delivers three bad chunks to anyone on the network, they are blacklisted and get no new referrals. They are essentially shut out at that point -- that IP is now useless for that torrent.
In short, it seems a relatively futile attack. You would have to have a very large zombie net in order to swamp a torrent, so to speak.
"You have failed to detail what the holes are, so therefore your argument is no argument at all. "
I pointed out that you are missing an entire half of your argument. You start out by saying that the EU/UN are wrong here, and then you never mention any facts regarding the EU again. You fail to complete the path your started. You are saying that I haven't pointed out any holes -- you are correct. I ahve pointed out that you don't *have* any arguments abou the EU -- thus, there are no holes to poke. You are *missing half of your boat* and you are looking at it saying, "I don't see any holes". You are missing the forest for the trees.
"Considering that your own claim to fame is fictional "rag sheet" stories, sir, I'm not certain you're in a position to be claiming expertise in logic battles."
As far as my blog listed in my personal info, I make no claim to fame, and my blog has no bearing on this argument, and has nothing to do with my abilities with logic. You have extremely poor rhetorical technique, and you seem enthusiastic to show it.
The problem is that, for the non-technological masses, the WWW *as it is now* IS the internet.
So when the DNS wars break out and half the internet can't communicate with the other half, people will be wondering why they can't get to their online banking site, or ebay, and why can't those geeks/politicians/coporations get their act together.
Meanwhile, of course, geeks will be installing the latest software to use the internet in new and exciting ways.
It effectively puts us back to 1990, where the internet was something only the incredibly nerdy could use.
Well, you are right. Life *had* to start *somewhere*. My point was we don't necessarily need abiogenesis *on Mars*.
"Your argument, sir, is none at all."
No, my argument fulfilled its scope. My argument is simply showing that yours is incomplete. I am not arguing at all about the internet, the US, the UN or the EU. I did a good job.
"You have censured me for having incomplete information, yet you have failed to complete it yourself."
It's not my job to make your argument for you. You did half of your job. Take my criticism and learn, young grasshopper. Enroll in a logic class or something.
Your argument is very sloppy. At the beginning you note that this is a push from the UN and the EU, but then continue on solely in an anti-UN tirade. All of your anti-UN arguments cannot necessarily be applied to the EU, so you are missing about half of what you need to convince someone who disagrees with you.
Do we really need a government, or super-government in charge of this? Can't we have a decentralized network of root servers working together on this co-operatively? If one server or network became consistently unreliable, people would stop using it.
Well, there is also the space-seeding theory of the origin of life on this planet. Life need not necessarily have had an abiogenesis.
It would be strange to list Alaska or Hawaii along side China, the US, or Germany -- it implies that they are at the same level, when in fact they are part of the US. The same thing goes for map resolution.
Listing Taiwan as anything other than a province of China is an implication of independence to the PRC authorities -- after all, Schizuan isn't listed on its own, is it? Then, what would be the reason for listing Taiwan on its own?
Do you mean 80 MB?
In the instance described above, it sounds like the female wanted to ensure that she got the little bit of sperm that the dominant male was producing, and that no other female got it.
BTW has anyone else seen mice emulating a cargo ferry since Roman times? Events such as chimps using grass stalks as termite catching sticks has been well-documented. I've seen footage of it, even.
- Mark Twain
Well, since they lack opposable thumbs, they won't be able to fill in the little bubbles on the IQ test, so they are therefore demonstrably less intelligent.
Raccoons are very good mechanically, so long as they can reach the thing and get their thumbed hands on it (note: raccoon thumbs are not opposable). They are expert openers when it comes to containers for food and garbage.
Well, raccoons do this too, and guaranteed, they are less intelligent than apes.