with antibiotic resistance; though just wait till enough disease paranoid people start loading up on antibiotics with the 2 plague cases in NY... that should give plenty of bugs the opportunity to evolve resistance!;) Heck, with things like this developing its a wonder anti-evolutionist 'creation science' people can show their faces in public!
I just replaced a drive for a client, not due to failure but due to need for increased storage.
When I looked around for drives only Seagate were prepared to give 5yr warranties on their products.
If manufacturers don't stand by their products, how do they expect consumers to.
Interestingly, this axiom *should* apply to most commercially available software which usually has a complete disclaimer of incompetence, warranty etc in the license agreement.
How long before we see such disclaimers on hardware?
when people can import their outlook data files (.pst files etc) complete with calender, contacts lists, tasks and of course email.
I *know* one can export outlook data files to imap (uh, correct me if I'm using the wrong acronym there) and then re-import them to unix mail format (theres a howto on this), but, importantly; this causes *EVERYTHING* to appear as an email item, including calender entries, contacts lists everything comes across as a piece of email. Which I regard as a lot less than useful...
Some might say thats better than nothing, I say *phhfft*
savage attack on UDP traffic & blocking of VoIP, maybe we can route IP over the NW passage too!! 8) lets just cut Panama right out of the picture.
(BTW I always was in favor of global warming & greenhouse gasses; my guess is that the shrinkage of fauna is due to the slow carbon starvation of the planet (carbon being locked up in 'fossil fuels'). I mean hows a hadrosaur sposed to go from baby to huge mo'fo in one growing season without lush vegetation to gobble down? Bring the CO2 levels back to what they were back then I say!)
"of our descendants to bursting point, though such limitations do not worry film scriptwriters. Paramount's latest sci-fi thriller, The Core - directed by Englishman Jon Amiel, and starring Hilary Swank and Aaron Eckhart - depicts a world beset by just such a polar reversal, with radiation sweeping the planet.
The solution, according to the film, to be released next year, involves scientists drilling into Earth's mantle to set off a nuclear blast that will halt the reversal."
Wow, nukes again. Those puppies are *so* useful! Stopping asteroids, stopping the earths magnetic field from shifting, what next? Save the world from impending ecological disaster by nuking antarctica? Will wonders never cease?
I think we are broadly in agreement, but I'd just like to point out something in the nature of the 'when do you stop looking' problem;
This is essentially a decision problem, right?
How do you use an algorithm -- a method -- to decide to stop descending an infinite branch of a proof?
This has always, and will always be, a problem in formal logic.
In computation theory its an even more 'real' problem leading to eg the halting problem among others.
In scientific method, its an even more real problem because it impacts on our ability to be purely rational about solving scientific problems or disproving theories.
What it means is, in the context of our discussion so far, that at some stage one must use ones feelings to determine when one stops bothering to look for an equal and opposite reaction and to declare that this particular action is a counterexample and that the laws of physics must be revised.
Different people have different feelings on these matters, different thresholds and this gets some people into hot water.:)
This is related/connected with Goedels incompleteness theorem.
(Personally, and I know this is sticking my neck out, but I believe that reality is complete and inconsistent).
hmmmm my perspective on this is that its not so much the paradigms as the integrity of thought.
As I see it modern science is losing its integrity as a discipline of discovery and becoming more religion-like.
Its almost as if science were regressing back to the days when certain views were the orthodoxy and to challenge them inevitably results in scorn regardless of experimental results.
The problem lies, in part (I believe) in the shakey scientific training today (my reference to Newton & axioms vs theories) and in part in the way that science is funded, encouraging scientists to make pretenses in order to get funding.
Perhaps science was better off when it was being performed by self-funded aristocrats!;)
I think 'Pooh poohed' might be a technical term meaning something like "Emotionally disatisfied" which seems like a fair enough way to look at Einsteins reaction to things like that. 'God doesn't play dice' and all that; not exactly scientific. Aherm. (that ones gonna get me in trubble)
BUT THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! I only believe in things on esthetic grounds anymore so I could hardly dis Einstein for it.
I would doubt very much that any sheep could be black. Light would just have to fall into it.
They are most probably dark brown.
The previous posters comment though and your reaction proves my point about the sad state of science; its never about proving something absolutely true or false or whatever; its about finding theories that *hold*
Math is the domain of absolute truths, not physical sciences.
We come up with a theory then try to disprove it. So long as we are unsuccessful the theory is said to hold and we utilise it to devise new theories and experiments. If and when the theory no longer holds it is discarded for a new one; one which does hold.
I dunno exactly how the posting system works here but I have given this as an answer to a few others now that its clearer in my head, so if you don't mind I'll just paste it.
(BTW the initial point was more that this is an example of something that many people, including many scientists, *assume* is a theory, but its actually an axiom).
Suppose you are checking for counterexamples and you find an action with no equal & opposite reaction (that you can discern).
Thats just absence of evidence not evidence of absence.
So you have to look deeper for an equal & opposite reaction for this apparently errant action.
When, exactly, do you stop looking? When you have checked every other action in the universe and determined that not one of them was an equal & opposite reaction to that action (the one you were looking at in the first place)?
This is an impossible task, but its the only way, short of finding a mechanism to explain the reason for the axiom, but then the 'every action has a blardy bla bla' becomes a data element in a theory, not a theory in its own right.
suppose you are checking for counterexamples and you find an action with no equal & opposite reaction you can discern.
Thats just absence of evidence not evidence of absence.
So you have to look deeper for an equal & opposite reaction for this errant action.
When, exactly, do you stop looking? When you have checked every other action in the universe and determined that not one of them was an equal & opposite reaction to that action?
suppose you are checking for counterexamples and you find an action with no equal & opposite reaction you can discern.
Thats just absence of evidence not evidence of absence.
So you have to look deeper for an equal & opposite reaction for this errant action.
When, exactly, do you stop looking? When you have checked every other action in the universe and determined that not one of them was an equal & opposite reaction to that action?
This is an impossible task, but its the only way, short of finding a mechanism to explain it, but then the 'every action has a blardy bla bla' becomes a data element in a theory, not a theory in its own right.
What I'm trying to get at, and this'll answer the other subthreads from this too, what I'm trying to get at is;
That modern science has lost its way when people who are trained scientists can't tell the difference between an axiom (something taken as a given) and a theorem (something which can be tested).
Take the example of the guy who came up with the 'water memory theory'. I don't have a handy URL, but this renowned scientist published a paper in Nature, to the effect that water somehow remembers things like antibodies; he said he took pure water, added antibodies, diluted it to the point where a sample of the water shouldn't give an antibody reaction, but it did, until exposed to oscilating magnetic fields at which point the diluted water no longer gave an antibody reaction but the real antibody carrying water did.
Ok that was long winded, but what happened? Nature retracted the papers (I believe?) and he got *two* ignobel prizes.
So far as I can tell Noone, not one person who dissed off his theory bothered testing it.
They *assumed* it was false and didnt bother trying to disprove it.
This is not science. Yet it was being done (is still being done) by people who call themselves scientists.
Roger Bacon would be turning in his grave; in around 1200AD in universities in Europe, it was taught that diamonds dissolved in goats blood. Aristotle had taught this so it had to be true. Noone bothered trying to disprove it.
Roger Bacon singlehandedly invented scientific method by saving up his meager students income to buy a *very* small diamond, and a goat and performed the experiment.
The diamond didn't dissolve, Bacon was chastised, and scientific method was born.
Today we have the absurd situation I described before. Virtually the reverse.
Nuf said. Noones going to read this anyway. But it was worth saying it cos its clearer in my head now.
"How do you disprove it? Find an action which does not produce an equal and opposite reaction."
Thats exactly my point; remember we are talking about physics not math. To disprove a physical theory one must be able to find a counterexample. But since we are dealing with universal quantifiers this is simply not possible.
Just like Freuds 'Every dream is a neurotic symptom'
Doubters should check some basic texts on the philosophy of science.
Nope; for every action a, there exists an reaction b, such that b is equal and opposite to a.
Therefore to prove this false one would need to find a counterexample; there exists an action a such that for every reaction b b is not an equal and opposite reaction to a
Which is an infinite task, since we are dealing with universal quantifiers. The proof tree would never end hence the original sentence is not disprovable.
Or something like that, its been 6 years since I got my Honors in formal logic.
for something new and interesting. But being frustrated at every turn.
Gone are the days when Newton could spout 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' and have it universally accepted; it wasn't 'good science' then and it isn't now.
Modern science is far too logically demanding for that sort of pseudo-theory.
In fact, its approaching the point where modern science is about as encouraging of new ideas as modern (analytical) philosophy. Which is to say, not very.
('Every action has an equal and opposite reaction' is logically flawed as a scientific theory since it cannot be disproved. At best its an axiom, but it cannot be tested. Problems with universal quantifiers, I'm afraid; For every a there Exists b such that P(a,b). Disproving such an assertion is impossible).
Slashdot Mirror
with antibiotic resistance; though just wait till enough disease paranoid people start loading up on antibiotics with the 2 plague cases in NY... that should give plenty of bugs the opportunity to evolve resistance! ;)
Heck, with things like this developing its a wonder anti-evolutionist 'creation science' people can show their faces in public!
"in the first place, sendmail should be
secure regardless of the filesystem permissions"
Did you?
its a constitutionally protected right to browse bestiality porno in a public place?
What kind of sick wierdos were the framers ofthe US constitution??
8-|
I just replaced a drive for a client, not due to failure but due to need for increased storage.
When I looked around for drives only Seagate were prepared to give 5yr warranties on their products.
If manufacturers don't stand by their products, how do they expect consumers to.
Interestingly, this axiom *should* apply to most commercially available software which usually has a complete disclaimer of incompetence, warranty etc in the license agreement.
How long before we see such disclaimers on hardware?
the DMCA?????
Q. How do you spot a troll?
A. With very *very* large knives.
yeah but then you need the exchange server infrastructure...
What I'd like to see is a simple file conversion.
Plus, its the only thing that could make outlook express safe!
(Except pulling the plug on the network connection)
Well, the technology that the article was about is giving site designers an option;
:)
they can go with
leaky wi-fi
or with
line of sight wi-fi
Thats a whole lot better than just leaky wi-fi, right?
Uh, dude, I think thats also the *disadvantage* of wi-fi!!!!
nonononono
:-P
Take it apart and build a beowulf cluster out of the components?
Don't be daft man!
Imagine, say 64 of these puppies all connected together in a beowulf cluster!
Maybe a whole warehouse of them... say the icecream factory next to Weta Digital...
The 3rd LoTR movie would be out in a *week*
Uh, as long as the production team got their asses into gear.
when people can import their outlook data files (.pst files etc) complete with calender, contacts lists, tasks and of course email.
I *know* one can export outlook data files to imap (uh, correct me if I'm using the wrong acronym there) and then re-import them to unix mail format (theres a howto on this), but, importantly;
this causes *EVERYTHING* to appear as an email item, including calender entries, contacts lists everything comes across as a piece of email. Which I regard as a lot less than useful...
Some might say thats better than nothing, I say *phhfft*
savage attack on UDP traffic & blocking of VoIP, maybe we can route IP over the NW passage too!!
8)
lets just cut Panama right out of the picture.
(BTW I always was in favor of global warming & greenhouse gasses; my guess is that the shrinkage of fauna is due to the slow carbon starvation of the planet (carbon being locked up in 'fossil fuels').
I mean hows a hadrosaur sposed to go from baby to huge mo'fo in one growing season without lush vegetation to gobble down? Bring the CO2 levels back to what they were back then I say!)
"of our descendants to bursting point, though such limitations do not worry film scriptwriters. Paramount's latest sci-fi thriller, The Core - directed by Englishman Jon Amiel, and starring Hilary Swank and Aaron Eckhart - depicts a world beset by just such a polar reversal, with radiation sweeping the planet.
:o)
The solution, according to the film, to be released next year, involves scientists drilling into Earth's mantle to set off a nuclear blast that will halt the reversal."
Wow, nukes again. Those puppies are *so* useful!
Stopping asteroids, stopping the earths magnetic field from shifting, what next? Save the world from impending ecological disaster by nuking antarctica? Will wonders never cease?
Everyone should have one!
I think we are broadly in agreement,
:)
but I'd just like to point out something in the nature of the 'when do you stop looking' problem;
This is essentially a decision problem, right?
How do you use an algorithm -- a method -- to decide to stop descending an infinite branch of a proof?
This has always, and will always be, a problem in formal logic.
In computation theory its an even more 'real' problem leading to eg the halting problem among others.
In scientific method, its an even more real problem because it impacts on our ability to be purely rational about solving scientific problems or disproving theories.
What it means is, in the context of our discussion so far, that at some stage one must use ones feelings to determine when one stops bothering to look for an equal and opposite reaction and to declare that this particular action is a counterexample and that the laws of physics must be revised.
Different people have different feelings on these matters, different thresholds and this gets some people into hot water.
This is related/connected with Goedels incompleteness theorem.
(Personally, and I know this is sticking my neck out, but I believe that reality is complete and inconsistent).
hmmmm my perspective on this is that its not so much the paradigms as the integrity of thought.
;)
As I see it modern science is losing its integrity as a discipline of discovery and becoming more religion-like.
Its almost as if science were regressing back to the days when certain views were the orthodoxy and to challenge them inevitably results in scorn regardless of experimental results.
The problem lies, in part (I believe) in the shakey scientific training today (my reference to Newton & axioms vs theories) and in part in the way that science is funded, encouraging scientists to make pretenses in order to get funding.
Perhaps science was better off when it was being performed by self-funded aristocrats!
is not to hope for safety... in the form of standards that are adhered to!
I think 'Pooh poohed' might be a technical term meaning something like "Emotionally disatisfied"
which seems like a fair enough way to look at Einsteins reaction to things like that. 'God doesn't play dice' and all that; not exactly scientific. Aherm. (that ones gonna get me in trubble)
BUT THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!
I only believe in things on esthetic grounds anymore so I could hardly dis Einstein for it.
I would doubt very much that any sheep could be black. Light would just have to fall into it.
They are most probably dark brown.
The previous posters comment though and your reaction proves my point about the sad state of science; its never about proving something absolutely true or false or whatever; its about finding theories that *hold*
Math is the domain of absolute truths, not physical sciences.
We come up with a theory then try to disprove it.
So long as we are unsuccessful the theory is said to hold and we utilise it to devise new theories and experiments.
If and when the theory no longer holds it is discarded for a new one; one which does hold.
Yeah sorry typical internet sloppyness.
I dunno exactly how the posting system works here but I have given this as an answer to a few others now that its clearer in my head, so if you don't mind I'll just paste it.
(BTW the initial point was more that this is an example of something that many people, including many scientists, *assume* is a theory, but its actually an axiom).
Suppose you are checking for counterexamples and you find an action with no equal & opposite reaction (that you can discern).
Thats just absence of evidence not evidence of absence.
So you have to look deeper for an equal & opposite reaction for this apparently errant action.
When, exactly, do you stop looking? When you have checked every other action in the universe and determined that not one of them was an equal & opposite reaction to that action (the one you were looking at in the first place)?
This is an impossible task, but its the only way, short of finding a mechanism to explain the reason for the axiom, but then the 'every action has a blardy bla bla' becomes a data element in a theory, not a theory in its own right.
suppose you are checking for counterexamples and you find an action with no equal & opposite reaction you can discern.
Thats just absence of evidence not evidence of absence.
So you have to look deeper for an equal & opposite reaction for this errant action.
When, exactly, do you stop looking? When you have checked every other action in the universe and determined that not one of them was an equal & opposite reaction to that action?
the thread is about physical science in which experiments must be performable.
Logics just a tool.
Study Goedel.
suppose you are checking for counterexamples and you find an action with no equal & opposite reaction you can discern.
Thats just absence of evidence not evidence of absence.
So you have to look deeper for an equal & opposite reaction for this errant action.
When, exactly, do you stop looking? When you have checked every other action in the universe and determined that not one of them was an equal & opposite reaction to that action?
This is an impossible task, but its the only way, short of finding a mechanism to explain it, but then the 'every action has a blardy bla bla' becomes a data element in a theory, not a theory in its own right.
What I'm trying to get at, and this'll answer the other subthreads from this too, what I'm trying to get at is;
That modern science has lost its way when people who are trained scientists can't tell the difference between an axiom (something taken as a given) and a theorem (something which can be tested).
Take the example of the guy who came up with the 'water memory theory'. I don't have a handy URL, but this renowned scientist published a paper in Nature, to the effect that water somehow remembers things like antibodies; he said he took pure water, added antibodies, diluted it to the point where a sample of the water shouldn't give an antibody reaction, but it did, until exposed to oscilating magnetic fields at which point the diluted water no longer gave an antibody reaction but the real antibody carrying water did.
Ok that was long winded, but what happened? Nature retracted the papers (I believe?) and he got *two* ignobel prizes.
So far as I can tell Noone, not one person who dissed off his theory bothered testing it.
They *assumed* it was false and didnt bother trying to disprove it.
This is not science. Yet it was being done (is still being done) by people who call themselves scientists.
Roger Bacon would be turning in his grave;
in around 1200AD in universities in Europe, it was taught that diamonds dissolved in goats blood. Aristotle had taught this so it had to be true. Noone bothered trying to disprove it.
Roger Bacon singlehandedly invented scientific method by saving up his meager students income to buy a *very* small diamond, and a goat and performed the experiment.
The diamond didn't dissolve, Bacon was chastised, and scientific method was born.
Today we have the absurd situation I described before. Virtually the reverse.
Nuf said. Noones going to read this anyway.
But it was worth saying it cos its clearer in my head now.
"How do you disprove it? Find an action which does not produce an equal and opposite reaction."
Thats exactly my point; remember we are talking about physics not math.
To disprove a physical theory one must be able to find a counterexample.
But since we are dealing with universal quantifiers this is simply not possible.
Just like Freuds 'Every dream is a neurotic symptom'
Doubters should check some basic texts on the philosophy of science.
Nope;
for every action a,
there exists an reaction b,
such that b is equal and opposite to a.
Therefore to prove this false one would need to find a counterexample;
there exists an action a
such that for every reaction b
b is not an equal and opposite reaction to a
Which is an infinite task, since we are dealing with universal quantifiers.
The proof tree would never end hence the original sentence is not disprovable.
Or something like that, its been 6 years since I got my Honors in formal logic.
for something new and interesting. But being frustrated at every turn.
Gone are the days when Newton could spout 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' and have it universally accepted; it wasn't 'good science' then and it isn't now.
Modern science is far too logically demanding for that sort of pseudo-theory.
In fact, its approaching the point where modern science is about as encouraging of new ideas as modern (analytical) philosophy. Which is to say, not very.
('Every action has an equal and opposite reaction' is logically flawed as a scientific theory since it cannot be disproved. At best its an axiom, but it cannot be tested. Problems with universal quantifiers, I'm afraid; For every a there Exists b such that P(a,b). Disproving such an assertion is impossible).