Perhaps i am just daft, but what does DEMOCRACY have to do with dumping? Do you mean CAPATALISTIC countries?
I am not trying to be overly nazi-esque. I am just curious as to whether there IS a connection between market practices and law and the system of democracy. Or whether the above is just a typo.
Of course, even if it were democracy, then it wouldn't really affect us, since we don't actaully live in a democracy, but a republic. But that is a whole 'nother discussion. And i am rambling now:D
hmmm... now, PLEASE don't think that i am attacking you personally, per se. But you have kinda hit on one of my pet peeves, so i gotta comment.
Bassically, i think this sort of attitude is what is bred by our educational system. That is, people think, "why would i do this, if I am not being aknowledge/rewarded?"
I call it the "Gold Star Syndrom" (GSS)
I mean really, why does an inatimate computer need to reward you for anything? Why does aknowledgement make what you did any better/hareded/more important, ect? Why can't people just set goals for themselves and then accomplish them and feel like meeting their own personal goal is reward enough? Really.
Frankly, i see this kind of behavior everyday, and it is kinda sad. People are so very concered with being recognized for what they have done. Or they will not do anything if they do not hear that they have potential and what they are doing is worth it. Seriously. This is so bad. But this is what happens when people learn early on that nothing is worth doing unless it is rewarded. This is what happens when people are taught to expect a gold star everytime they turn in a report in school. *Sigh*
NOw i would like to say that i kinda see where you are comming from in THIS case. I mean, you just really want to see some more content from the developers. You want to see a more rich gameplay experience -- and who wouldn't? But to have the attitude that things are not fun, if they are not rewarded or aknowledged is kinda a poor one. I mean, isn't making the game harder than it was indended to be AND beating it that way, satisfying. To know that you can set goals that they developers thought were to hard to include. ANd then pwning the game that way?
Perhaps i just am not smart enough understand why GSS is a good thing. But it seems like with this attitude, why would people ever go running for exersise or go hiking or do ANYTHING that others are not around to see and reward them for. As such, i see many people that just don't try new things -- not becuase they are afraid of trying and failing, but they are afraid of trying and not being rewarded. Quite sad.
Again, i don't know that this is YOUR attitude, and i do not mean to attack you, personally. I just wanted to comment on an attitude that i saw comming through in your post.:D
Not to be overly argumentative, but i belive that GnuGO is rated in the high single digit Kyus -- definately in what is considered to be intermediate strength in GO.
I understand exactly what you are talking about. And it is a perfect example of how every analogy breaks down at some point. In this case the analogy is broken becuase i failed to mention anything about the preferences of the guests.
So to fix this lets assume that you are throwing a dinner party (you are a worker) and you know that your guests are rather neat people and would prefer to attend a party at a clean house (your boss likes it when people dress formally). Then it would be reasonalble to expect that more guests will show up (you are more likely to get a promotion) if you clean the house (you wear a tie to work). And if you have another person who is also throwing a party using the same caterer for the same people (a co-worker), but is does not go through the effort to clean the house, then the guests are most likely not going to enjoy the party as much (he won't get the promotion).
The point of course is that you must be aware are what is expected of you and act accourdingly. If you live in a place in wich dressing formally and wearing a tie is a way of showing respect, then you should not be suprized if people view those who wear ties as more repsectfull (professional?) than those who do not.
Of course you must always examine where you are working. Perhaps your boss despises it when people wear ties. Then of course it would be unadvisable to wear them. Why? Because he would be less liekly to approve of you and move you up, so to speak. But this is not they way it is the majority of times. And that is why you hear more people complaining about having to wear ties, than complaining about be unable to wear ties. (that and they are sometimes uncomfortable, but you get the point).
But you are correct, in your analysis. And i would go even farther. If you konw that a clean place makes your guests uncomfortable then you should NOT clean. If you do, you are not only trying to "force" people to show respect, you are not showing them respect by making htem uncomfortable, when you know that is the case.
Of course for the house party, you are inviting poeople in to your house, so it behoves you to make them comfortable. THis is not quite the case at work -- so hear again the analogy breaks down.
But i don't want ot beat the "analogy breaking down" to death. I am sure that you get the point (as you seem quite intellegent).
The main point i am trying to make is that it is impoartant to understand where you are, the type of society that you live in, and act accorndingly. Of couse you don't (and shouldn't!) live up to every expectation society has. But you need to understand the consquences of not living up to them and eb willing to accept them.
For example, it would be rediculous to know that society values the wearing of ties (however, arbitrary it seems) Then to not wear a tie and become upset when you are passed over promotion for it. I mean, you KNEW that it was valued. If you choose not to do it, more power to you. But be aware that that decision may cost you. ONce you are aware of this and can make decisioins taking this into consideration, you are being very mature and you will understand that you may not get a promotion. But you know that and should be willing to accept it when it happens.
I think i am staring to ramble now, so i will stop, but i hope that makes some sense.
actually, i never said that i associate a tie with rank or privalage or any of that. And i do actually see the humor in wearing a tie with a ratty t-shirt (being a punk and having done it myself). HOwever, i do not fool myself and pretend i don't understand why people wear ties. NOr do i put on blinders and dismiss the whole afair as rediculous. Rather, i try to really eximine WHY ties are considered important. And i do truly belive that is it associated with showing respect to one's job/coworks/boss. Here in the west we have kinda lost the meaning of respect, but all you need do is look to the east (eg Japan) to see how respect is still important and central to a lifestyle. HOwever, just becuase respect is somewhat downplayed here in the west does not mean that it is not impoartant (stupid double negatives!). Nor does it mean that it is not noticed. It is important to show gratitude for where you are and what you do. Dressing up (like, by wearing a tie) is one way (a very easy way) to do this.
Also, i do not understand what you have against non-practical stuff. SOme of the greatest things in life are non-practical. Like art. And (heaven forbid, sex with no intent on getting pregnent). IN fact, i would say the non-pratical side of life is the side that is worth living for. IF everything had to be pratical, then life would be boaring, and there would be no/.!
I do understand the desire for variety, and perhaps that is your point. that if you are going to wear one non-practicle thing, then why not another? Well the answer is simple really. Society interprits ties as a sign of respect and formality. FUCK SOCIETY! you cry? Well, Ok. But don't come crying when you don't get the promotion becuase you didn't wear a tie. That is my point.
You see, you are free to show respect however you want. If you want to show respect by doing a good job. Great. If you think that is enough, and you don't wear a tie (or wear one witha ratty t-shirt) then that is cool too. You have to be cool with yourself first. HOwever, you also have to accept that you live in a larger society than just yourself or your section of pop-culter. As such, you need to realize how the reast of society will view your actions and take that into account when you act. We do not live in a vacume (or any other major appliance, really).
See, it just so happens that in this society we show respect and fomality by wearing ties. That is the way it is now. Until it changes that is the way it will be (pretty profound, eh?) So, you don't have to follow soceity and waer a tie. You can go counter-culter and try to change it. Just don't expect that there shoulw be no consiquesnes to this. That is just fantasy.
The point being. If you want to succeed in society, you have to play society's games. If you want to change soceity, that is cool, just don't expect to win alot fo friends along the way. And all that jazz.
Wait, that wasn't really the point. The point is, you have to really look at what your actions are and what their consequences will be. Burrying your head the sand doesn't make it go away. that was what i was trying to say.:D
crap. I posted this in the wrong place, just a minute ago. I really ment it to be here. I am terribly sorry for the double post (how embarassing). But now on with the real post...
Ok so now you are just being silly. Of couse safty takes precedence over appearence (but not everyone works in a machine shop, do they?) Of course you can wear a tie with a ratty t-shirt or a pit stained polo. THat is not really the point is it? The tie just symbolizes formality, as far as this discussion goes. Now obviously someone who belives in the importance of formality in the work place would not wear a tie with ratty clothes. So we can ingore arguments of this nature.
The REAL question is whether formality is a good thing to have in the workplace or (secondly) whether it is a valid grounds for promotion.
So, let me try to adress this question.
Consider this, if you are having a dinner party. Do you clean up the house some first? (Most people do.) Why? It is not nessesarily functional to have the floor vacumed. Having the bathrooms clean does not make the food taste better. But cleaning the house shows RESPECT for your company. It shows then that you care about them enough to go a little beyond what is absolutely nessesary. IN effect you are saying that "I know you may not really care about athetics while you eat, but this is a way of showing you that i don't mind going a little out of my way for you."
Formality has the same function in the workplace. It shows those whom you work with that you respect your job and that you don't mind trying to look nice while you are working. It shows your boss that think enough of your work to present what is considered a "professional" appearence. Dressing formally at work is a way to make a constant, passive, outward showing of your attitude about your work. It is so wrong for a boss to take into considerations his employee's attitudes as well as performance when giving a promotion? Esp between two equally (or near equally) skilled people.
Again, looking at the dinner party example. Lets say that you are invited to two dinner parties on the same night. For the sake of argument, they are both to be catered by the same company. NOw you know that at person A's house you will find a clean house, sparkling bathroons, vacumed carpets, and all that stuff (the suit and tie, if you will). At person B's house, you will find a house that is in disaray. Magzines and newspapers scaattered across the floor. A bathroom that is in disaray stained walls, ect. (ratty t-shirt and stained polo).
NOw since the dinner is catered, there is no reason to worry about quality or sanitation of food (quality of work is the same). SO which house do you go to? House A or house B? I think most of us would rather go to house A. Even though the presentation has no effect on the taste of the food. WE just feel that that person appreciates us more, cares more about the party, ect. and it is that attitude that we like.
Similarely, in the workplace, if the quality of work done is nearly the same, it is quite reasonable to take into account the attitude that people chose to present while at work. SOme of the attitude that we have towards our work is the way in which we choose to cloth ourselves.
I hope that makes at least some sense. Everything you do reflects your view of the world. This includes the idea that the way your dress reflects your view of your job. At least to some extent.
Ok, now you are just being silly. Of couse safty takes precedence over appearence (but not everyone works in a machine shop, do they?) Of course you can wear a tie with a ratty t-shirt or a pit stained polo. THat is not really the point is it? The tie just symbolizes formality, as far as this discussion goes. Now obviously someone who belives in the importance of formality in the work place would not wear a tie with ratty clothes. So we can ingore arguments of this nature.
The REAL question is whether formality is a good thing to have in the workplace or (secondly) whether it is a valid grounds for promotion.
So, let me try to adress this question.
Consider this, if you are having a dinner party. Do you clean up the house some first? (Most people do.) Why? It is not nessesarily functional to have the floor vacumed. Having the bathrooms clean does not make the food taste better. But cleaning the house shows RESPECT for your company. It shows then that you care about them enough to go a little beyond what is absolutely nessesary. IN effect you are saying that "I know you may not really care about athetics while you eat, but this is a way of showing you that i don't mind going a little out of my way for you."
Formality has the same function in the workplace. It shows those whom you work with that you respect your job and that you don't mind trying to look nice while you are working. It shows your boss that think enough of your work to present what is considered a "professional" appearence. Dressing formally at work is a way to make a constant, passive, outward showing of your attitude about your work. It is so wrong for a boss to take into considerations his employee's attitudes as well as performance when giving a promotion? Esp between two equally (or near equally) skilled people.
Again, looking at the dinner party example. Lets say that you are invited to two dinner parties on the same night. For the sake of argument, they are both to be catered by the same company. NOw you know that at person A's house you will find a clean house, sparkling bathroons, vacumed carpets, and all that stuff (the suit and tie, if you will). At person B's house, you will find a house that is in disaray. Magzines and newspapers scaattered across the floor. A bathroom that is in disaray stained walls, ect. (ratty t-shirt and stained polo).
NOw since the dinner is catered, there is no reason to worry about quality or sanitation of food (quality of work is the same). SO which house do you go to? House A or house B? I think most of us would rather go to house A. Even though the presentation has no effect on the taste of the food. WE just feel that that person appreciates us more, cares more about the party, ect. and it is that attitude that we like.
Similarely, in the workplace, if the quality of work done is nearly the same, it is quite reasonable to take into account the attitude that people chose to present while at work. SOme of the attitude that we have towards our work is the way in which we choose to cloth ourselves.
I hope that makes at least some sense. Everything you do reflects your view of the world. This includes the idea that the way your dress reflects your view of your job. At least to some extent.
Well, there may be hope. Not all of his books are in the SF section. "The Big U" is almost always found in the "literature" section (whatever that means) or the plain old fiction section.
Granted, this is prolly his least populare book (i acutally enjoyed it) and it was his first. So he hadn't really been pigeonholed by marketers yet. But at least there is a precidence for him not having all of his book in SF. So perhaps this book will end up keeping the lonely "the big U" company on the fiction shelves.
"Nanotechnology now means any process for determining structure or composition at a molecular scale."
Which, of course, is itself a poor definition. Biochemists have been determining stucture and and composition of proteins (at the moleculare scale) and DNA (agian, moleculare scale) for quite some time now. But we do not consider this to be nanotechnology. People have been creating drugs AND fules this way too. For quite some time. Drug companies do not call thenselves nanotech either.
I think a much better definition of nanotechnology or nonscience as this;
Nanotech or nano science is the area of research that deals with materials at the scale in which both the bulk properties and quantum properties of the material are manifest and important.
I think using a definition such as this is less confusing and more informative.
Thus, very small electronics could be considered nano-tech. This is becuase, in that case, a bulk property like the plasmon resonance is dependent on the size of the particle (the "virtual quantum well" in wich it resides, if you will).
THings like that are what appear to really be nanotech to me.
AIDS is a BL2. It SHOULD be a BL 3 (no cure, but can be treated). However, for logistical reasons it is a BL2. Otherwise (if it was BL3, then blood drives would have to be done in a BL3 facility, all research on donated blook would have to be done in a BL3 facility, ect. At least until you checked to see if it contained HIV.
At least that is what i was told when i worked with human blood. It is balisically a logistic thing, owing to the fact that AIDS is fairly prevelent.
Re:And we're still teaching it wrongly
on
Happy Birthday, Atom
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And what is the right way, may i ask?
Really, there is no really good way to describe atoms. Sure you can say that QM is the way to go, but as someone else pointed out, the simplistic model of orbiting electrons works quite nice in may situations.
QM also has its failures. For instance, in calculating certain molecular orbital energies, using just a strict ionic resonance (the desciption that you would arrive at by just basic valence considerations) is much more accurate than the energy arrived at by adding into it covalent resonance character (what we get from QM considerations).
In the end, we just kinda use what seems to work best, quickest, or most with the least amount of work. That is the way of things. Sure we don't tell kids the earth in flat, but we don't really use the considerations of the curved earth everyday, do we? We say that we are "going over to our freinds house" not "going over and down, due to the cuvature of the earth, to our friends house." It would just be rediculous to say that. It is way more information than is needed in the cirmunstance.
By the same measure, it is not nessesary to underatnd QM, LCAO MO, SALC, Hartree Fock, or any of that other crap to understand that one Na combines with one Cl to make table salt now is it?
Most HS students will not really go on to use chemistry, they do not need to know QM to get by in the real world. And most of them will shy away from math. Perhaps this sounds bad, but really what we need to do is give them the best ahndle on chemistry possible. IN some cases this will mean making consetions and realizing that most people dont give a flying squirles rat's ass about chem, and teaching them acocurndingly.
In the end, if we can teach people enough chem so that they realize that some things are bad for them and others are good, then i think we have accounplished our job. If some of these people want to devote themseslves to years of esoteric research, then all the better, but we HAVE to reach the common man (boy) too.
Just my thoughts, perhaps a bit long, but i always get upset when people say "we are teaching inccorect stuff." Becuase, really, we are teaching stuff, that while perhaps not as accurate as possible, is stuff that really works in the real world.
Sorry if that sounded kinda bad, but really, what is wrong with working your way up conceptually, esp if the easier concepts work for 99.9% of the probelms the average person will encounter?
actually, mercury is not too teribly horrible to ingest. In fact, for some stomach illnesses, mercury is prescribed and ingested on a regulare basis. This is not to say that you should expose yourself to mercury just for the fun of it, but in the liquid phase it is not as bad as you would think.
Where mercury really gets you is in the vapor phase. Breathing mecury vapor is really bad for you.
I guess this is not really all that important to point out, but i just thought you might like to know:)
well, we probably are, however, it is not for the same reason. Adaptive response is thought to be observed because the low dose of posion causes a repair mechanism to be turned on. THus when a larger dose is incountered the cells are already primed to handle the posion. HOwever, because adaptive response in in effect just a "warming up" of the cell's natural repair mechanisms, so to speak, the effect only lasts so long. This is because once you remove teh cells from the posion, the repair mechanism will eventually shut down, thus the cell is no longer primed to handle the posion.
Anyway, this resistance is a natural effect for the cells, and only lasts for a short while. THus the increased resistance has nothing to do with a modified gene base. HOWEVER, the degree to which this phenomenon is observed (that is, how well the adaptive response protects the cells) IS most likely due to some sort of variation in differnt cells genes. THus, this can be selected for.
Thus, we are, in fact, breeding roaches that are tougher and tougher to kill with posion. But the fact that adaptive response happens has nothing to do with this. Just the degree to which it happens.
I hope this makes sense, i am not too sure i explained it that well. Feel free to ask any questions that you might have. COOL
You are certainly correct. We used very high dose rates. I think about the highest was...lets see, like 2 cGy over like a minute. Yeah, so much much higher.
Yeah, i guess that i am leaping a bit to suppose that hormesis and adaptive response are one and teh same, but i don't think it is too much of a leap. Good catch though:)
Well, we looked at individual cells within a population (we used both human derived cell lines, and white blood cells taken from exposed rats) to determine the amount of damage sustained by individual cells within different populations. However, in order to be able to report any of our findings, we had to do statistics on all the data for particulare populations. SO, i guess that while you can observe adaptive response on an individual cell basis, it doesn't really make any sense until you take the entire population in to account.
At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is know as adaptive response. The acticle is slightly misleading though. What is actually observed is that organisms which are exposed to small quantities of a toxin (lets say radiation) before being given a larger dose will experience less damage than those who were exposed to the larger dose without the small "priming" dose.
For example, cells in group A are exposed to a small dose, of raidation, given a few hours to sit around and then are exposed to a large dose of radiation. Group B is exposed to the large dose or radiatoin only. It can then be observed that group A suffers less damage (we quantified it by looking at the damage to the chromosomes, translocations, ect.) than those in group B.
Some caveates to this are... -If the large dose of radiation is too large, you will not see this adaptive response. -The time that the cells must wait after teh priming dose is about 6 hours, to short or too long a time and the adaptive response is not observed -The priming dose also must be within a range of certain values for adaptive response to take place -In some cases, you see a synergisti response in the radiation. That is the cells exposed to the priming and large dose experience MORE radiation than is expected from just the sum of the radiation that they were exposed too
All the research we did pointed to the fact that there is probably some kind of repair mechanism that is turned on when chromosomes are damaged. By exposing cells to a small priming dose of radiation, you have turned on this mechanism. Thus, when you expose the cells to the larger dose of radiation this repair mechanism is already turned on and the cell can more readily deal with the damage than other cells that have not recived this priming dose.
THis is pretty cool research when you think about it. I mean it affeects alot of stuff, esp in the medical feild. Think about chemotherapy. The idea is to kill cancer by exposing it to a dose or posion. However, the dose that is given is just caculated by body mass. This research alludes to the fact, however, that not all peope will respond the same to long term exposure to posoins. THe long term exposer acts almost like many many priming doses, and, in those people that exhibit greater adaptive response, the therapy will then be less effective. INtersting, no?
Also, there have been several different studies concerning geographical location in the US vs cancer frequecies (melenoma, to be exact). It was found that peope who lived in higher elevations (and thus recieved contiually doses of radiation that were higher than those at low elevations) had less occurance of skin cancer, than those of us at lower elevations. It is definatly hard to prove any connection, but hte thought was that this higher dose of radiation acted like a priming dose and then the higher doses of radiation that people are exposed to durring the summer had less of an effect.
Anyways, i just wanted to vouch for the article and say that the stuff the are talking about (however, misrepresented) does exist. THe practicalitly of it, and how much you should let it affect your behavior (still wear sunscreen!) is up to you. IT is not a very well understood phenomenon, but it is still cool.
i was just wondering if you would lista few of the alternatives to copyright that you alluded to in your post. I find your post extremely interesting, but i think that the idea is incomplete without at least one alternative. I don't doubt that they are out there, or that i could easily cind them on the net, however, i was curious what you would say, seeing as how you have obviously thought thouroughly about this subject already.
yes, the natural extension is that even crime is not outside of nature. We can see that this is indeed true. What is crime, other than a set of actions that is not considered appropriate by society? In most cases crimes are ways of "cheating" (ie. stealing, fruad, rape, ect.) They are ways of gaining an advantage without putting in the work. This is seen in nature too. THere are birds (i forget with ones) that will lay eggs in another birds nest, so that they can have offspring without putting in the effort. There are animals that will wait till one animal has killed its meal, and then it will steal that meat.
So you see, "crime" is all over nature, it is totally natural. However, as a society, we have decided that we do not value such actions, moreoever, that we will punish such actions. It is really a socities survival strategy, to limit the actions of others, and to punish those that act out side of these limits.
Now i am not saying that we should not have laws, i rather think that an ordered society is more fun to live in than a chaotic one. However, we need to realize that crime, as we call it, is a totally natural action, and that the only reason that it is considered bad is that society, as a collective, has adopted a survival stragegy that tries to limit those that will not work. That is all
I am not sure this is clear, but i hope it is.
As for karma, yeah there is some bad moderation, but that is just the way it goes. People don't like being forced to think, so they mod it down.:P
"We are also "chemicals" as you nicely put it. The human will is a conceit of the human mind. Actually, even the human "mind" is a conceit. All you are doing is defining a model for life and then saying that since genes do not follow your model, they do not live. This is a meaningless argument."
This is not meaningless, this is how all arguments are carried out. You define what you mean by something and then see if that definition works. But that is off topic...
Genes are not just dumb chemicals, eh? Why? You must give a reason for this acertion, if i am to belive it. Are all chemicals "alive" and have a will. Do chemicals have a "will" to react with others? Perhaps Nitrogen prefers to be N2 other than in NH4? What of rocks? Is there will to sit around and eventually reach the bottom of the graitational well? Perhaps this seems like a stupid argument. But this is what i am trying to ask; what, in your mind, differnetiats that with life from that without life?
As for genes ruling the universe....what about protiens? Perhaps they are the true rules of the universe.
Since when are chemicals considered to have wills? If they don't they can't be frustrated in the way that you are claiming, and as such your argument that they are not being tortured.
They are, however, being altered from their "natural" course. Or are they? Aren't humans part of nature? If we are, if we are a product of nature, how can we ever do anything that is outside of what is natural? Then us playing with genes is just anohter part of nature, albeit a new aspect of nature.
Re:yes, it does affect luminosity of the star
on
Non-Spherical Stars
·
· Score: 1
OK, so are you saying that the line broadening is cuased by the fact that you see several diffferent orientations or stars at the same time? So this is an inhomogenious line broadening. Much like that observed for phenomenon like doppler broadening? Where you would not see line braodening if you observed only one star, but you would see line broadening when you observe the entire cluster.
Or are you saying that there is line broadening do the the fast rotation in the individual stars. that is, you would still see line broadeneing if you were only able to observe a single star.
50% smaller? Wow, this must be spinning incredibly fast. With so must mass being displaced from where it would be in a sphere, it must effect the pressure inside the star. As such, i wonder how much this effects the fusion within the star. Since fusion is driven by the compressional forces of the suns mass, the effective reduced mass must reduce the energy output of this star. RIght?
Perhps i don't really kow what i am talking about.
Thank you. Yeah, you had a great point. I think that you got trolled because people couldn't see past you delivery:P. Oh well. ALso i think that some people are threatened by your challenge to the argument that they have just kinda blindly accepted forever. But people are kinda that way. But it has turned into an interesting discussion nonetheless =)
Regardless, it is always refreshing to see someone that actually thinks about what is being told to them, and can figure out when it is rubbish.
I am going to say this as kindly as i can... Have you actually read the link that you gave me?
What the link said under the heading "In the context of measuring sizes of sets" is exactly what i had said in the post that you originally relpied to. I kid you not. For instance, from the link that you provided, "What is really surprising is that there are other infinite sets which do not have the same size as the set of integers! For instance, the set of all real numbers is a much bigger set [than the set of natural numbers]."
This is exactly what i had stated earlier. I just proceeded to take this truth out to its inevetable conclusion. I think that we both agree that there are differing sizes of infinity. Thus if you have a larger infinity it cannot fit inside the set of smaller infinities. That is, if you have a set A that is infinite, and you have a set B that is a larger infinity, then set B cannot be mapped one to one onto set A. There is not enough elements in set A for set B to be mapped one to one.
This is the same as every real number cannot be assigned to a coresponding natural number, there are not enough natural numbers to do this. You see?
that must mean that if you have a number of possible things (on the order of the real numbers) to do and so much time to do it (on the order of the natural numbers) then you cannot do everything that is possible.
It is a natural conclusion, stemming from the differing sizes of infinities, that something is not possible, just becuaes you have an infinite amount of time.
Yeah, i think that adresses that. BTW, i DO indeed have too much time on my hands, i am a grad student, and so i really have nothing to do all day, except sit around and learn =)
"your logic is seriously flawed, sorry. and your choice of examples is... hmmm... interesting."
Well, i certainly welcome the oppertunity to hear another point of view, and if you would be so kind as to point out where my logic is flawed, i would appreciate it. I do sometimes seem to just write and it is hard to find the errors in your own reasoning sometimes.
So yea, if you would be so kind to actually list what i said that was wrong instead of just telling me, then perhaps i could learn something from you post.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps i am just daft, but what does DEMOCRACY have to do with dumping? Do you mean CAPATALISTIC countries?
:D
I am not trying to be overly nazi-esque. I am just curious as to whether there IS a connection between market practices and law and the system of democracy. Or whether the above is just a typo.
Of course, even if it were democracy, then it wouldn't really affect us, since we don't actaully live in a democracy, but a republic. But that is a whole 'nother discussion. And i am rambling now
hmmm...
:D
now, PLEASE don't think that i am attacking you personally, per se. But you have kinda hit on one of my pet peeves, so i gotta comment.
Bassically, i think this sort of attitude is what is bred by our educational system. That is, people think, "why would i do this, if I am not being aknowledge/rewarded?"
I call it the "Gold Star Syndrom" (GSS)
I mean really, why does an inatimate computer need to reward you for anything? Why does aknowledgement make what you did any better/hareded/more important, ect? Why can't people just set goals for themselves and then accomplish them and feel like meeting their own personal goal is reward enough? Really.
Frankly, i see this kind of behavior everyday, and it is kinda sad. People are so very concered with being recognized for what they have done. Or they will not do anything if they do not hear that they have potential and what they are doing is worth it. Seriously. This is so bad. But this is what happens when people learn early on that nothing is worth doing unless it is rewarded. This is what happens when people are taught to expect a gold star everytime they turn in a report in school. *Sigh*
NOw i would like to say that i kinda see where you are comming from in THIS case. I mean, you just really want to see some more content from the developers. You want to see a more rich gameplay experience -- and who wouldn't? But to have the attitude that things are not fun, if they are not rewarded or aknowledged is kinda a poor one. I mean, isn't making the game harder than it was indended to be AND beating it that way, satisfying. To know that you can set goals that they developers thought were to hard to include. ANd then pwning the game that way?
Perhaps i just am not smart enough understand why GSS is a good thing. But it seems like with this attitude, why would people ever go running for exersise or go hiking or do ANYTHING that others are not around to see and reward them for. As such, i see many people that just don't try new things -- not becuase they are afraid of trying and failing, but they are afraid of trying and not being rewarded. Quite sad.
Again, i don't know that this is YOUR attitude, and i do not mean to attack you, personally. I just wanted to comment on an attitude that i saw comming through in your post.
Not to be overly argumentative, but i belive that GnuGO is rated in the high single digit Kyus -- definately in what is considered to be intermediate strength in GO.
I understand exactly what you are talking about. And it is a perfect example of how every analogy breaks down at some point. In this case the analogy is broken becuase i failed to mention anything about the preferences of the guests.
So to fix this lets assume that you are throwing a dinner party (you are a worker) and you know that your guests are rather neat people and would prefer to attend a party at a clean house (your boss likes it when people dress formally). Then it would be reasonalble to expect that more guests will show up (you are more likely to get a promotion) if you clean the house (you wear a tie to work). And if you have another person who is also throwing a party using the same caterer for the same people (a co-worker), but is does not go through the effort to clean the house, then the guests are most likely not going to enjoy the party as much (he won't get the promotion).
The point of course is that you must be aware are what is expected of you and act accourdingly. If you live in a place in wich dressing formally and wearing a tie is a way of showing respect, then you should not be suprized if people view those who wear ties as more repsectfull (professional?) than those who do not.
Of course you must always examine where you are working. Perhaps your boss despises it when people wear ties. Then of course it would be unadvisable to wear them. Why? Because he would be less liekly to approve of you and move you up, so to speak. But this is not they way it is the majority of times. And that is why you hear more people complaining about having to wear ties, than complaining about be unable to wear ties. (that and they are sometimes uncomfortable, but you get the point).
But you are correct, in your analysis. And i would go even farther. If you konw that a clean place makes your guests uncomfortable then you should NOT clean. If you do, you are not only trying to "force" people to show respect, you are not showing them respect by making htem uncomfortable, when you know that is the case.
Of course for the house party, you are inviting poeople in to your house, so it behoves you to make them comfortable. THis is not quite the case at work -- so hear again the analogy breaks down.
But i don't want ot beat the "analogy breaking down" to death. I am sure that you get the point (as you seem quite intellegent).
The main point i am trying to make is that it is impoartant to understand where you are, the type of society that you live in, and act accorndingly. Of couse you don't (and shouldn't!) live up to every expectation society has. But you need to understand the consquences of not living up to them and eb willing to accept them.
For example, it would be rediculous to know that society values the wearing of ties (however, arbitrary it seems) Then to not wear a tie and become upset when you are passed over promotion for it. I mean, you KNEW that it was valued. If you choose not to do it, more power to you. But be aware that that decision may cost you. ONce you are aware of this and can make decisioins taking this into consideration, you are being very mature and you will understand that you may not get a promotion. But you know that and should be willing to accept it when it happens.
I think i am staring to ramble now, so i will stop, but i hope that makes some sense.
Awsome.
actually, i never said that i associate a tie with rank or privalage or any of that. And i do actually see the humor in wearing a tie with a ratty t-shirt (being a punk and having done it myself). HOwever, i do not fool myself and pretend i don't understand why people wear ties. NOr do i put on blinders and dismiss the whole afair as rediculous. Rather, i try to really eximine WHY ties are considered important. And i do truly belive that is it associated with showing respect to one's job/coworks/boss. Here in the west we have kinda lost the meaning of respect, but all you need do is look to the east (eg Japan) to see how respect is still important and central to a lifestyle. HOwever, just becuase respect is somewhat downplayed here in the west does not mean that it is not impoartant (stupid double negatives!). Nor does it mean that it is not noticed. It is important to show gratitude for where you are and what you do. Dressing up (like, by wearing a tie) is one way (a very easy way) to do this.
/.!
:D
Also, i do not understand what you have against non-practical stuff. SOme of the greatest things in life are non-practical. Like art. And (heaven forbid, sex with no intent on getting pregnent). IN fact, i would say the non-pratical side of life is the side that is worth living for. IF everything had to be pratical, then life would be boaring, and there would be no
I do understand the desire for variety, and perhaps that is your point. that if you are going to wear one non-practicle thing, then why not another? Well the answer is simple really. Society interprits ties as a sign of respect and formality. FUCK SOCIETY! you cry? Well, Ok. But don't come crying when you don't get the promotion becuase you didn't wear a tie. That is my point.
You see, you are free to show respect however you want. If you want to show respect by doing a good job. Great. If you think that is enough, and you don't wear a tie (or wear one witha ratty t-shirt) then that is cool too. You have to be cool with yourself first. HOwever, you also have to accept that you live in a larger society than just yourself or your section of pop-culter. As such, you need to realize how the reast of society will view your actions and take that into account when you act. We do not live in a vacume (or any other major appliance, really).
See, it just so happens that in this society we show respect and fomality by wearing ties. That is the way it is now. Until it changes that is the way it will be (pretty profound, eh?) So, you don't have to follow soceity and waer a tie. You can go counter-culter and try to change it. Just don't expect that there shoulw be no consiquesnes to this. That is just fantasy.
The point being. If you want to succeed in society, you have to play society's games. If you want to change soceity, that is cool, just don't expect to win alot fo friends along the way. And all that jazz.
Wait, that wasn't really the point. The point is, you have to really look at what your actions are and what their consequences will be. Burrying your head the sand doesn't make it go away. that was what i was trying to say.
crap. I posted this in the wrong place, just a minute ago. I really ment it to be here. I am terribly sorry for the double post (how embarassing). But now on with the real post...
Ok so now you are just being silly. Of couse safty takes precedence over appearence (but not everyone works in a machine shop, do they?) Of course you can wear a tie with a ratty t-shirt or a pit stained polo. THat is not really the point is it? The tie just symbolizes formality, as far as this discussion goes. Now obviously someone who belives in the importance of formality in the work place would not wear a tie with ratty clothes. So we can ingore arguments of this nature.
The REAL question is whether formality is a good thing to have in the workplace or (secondly) whether it is a valid grounds for promotion.
So, let me try to adress this question.
Consider this, if you are having a dinner party. Do you clean up the house some first? (Most people do.) Why? It is not nessesarily functional to have the floor vacumed. Having the bathrooms clean does not make the food taste better. But cleaning the house shows RESPECT for your company. It shows then that you care about them enough to go a little beyond what is absolutely nessesary. IN effect you are saying that "I know you may not really care about athetics while you eat, but this is a way of showing you that i don't mind going a little out of my way for you."
Formality has the same function in the workplace. It shows those whom you work with that you respect your job and that you don't mind trying to look nice while you are working. It shows your boss that think enough of your work to present what is considered a "professional" appearence. Dressing formally at work is a way to make a constant, passive, outward showing of your attitude about your work. It is so wrong for a boss to take into considerations his employee's attitudes as well as performance when giving a promotion? Esp between two equally (or near equally) skilled people.
Again, looking at the dinner party example. Lets say that you are invited to two dinner parties on the same night. For the sake of argument, they are both to be catered by the same company. NOw you know that at person A's house you will find a clean house, sparkling bathroons, vacumed carpets, and all that stuff (the suit and tie, if you will). At person B's house, you will find a house that is in disaray. Magzines and newspapers scaattered across the floor. A bathroom that is in disaray stained walls, ect. (ratty t-shirt and stained polo).
NOw since the dinner is catered, there is no reason to worry about quality or sanitation of food (quality of work is the same). SO which house do you go to? House A or house B? I think most of us would rather go to house A. Even though the presentation has no effect on the taste of the food. WE just feel that that person appreciates us more, cares more about the party, ect. and it is that attitude that we like.
Similarely, in the workplace, if the quality of work done is nearly the same, it is quite reasonable to take into account the attitude that people chose to present while at work. SOme of the attitude that we have towards our work is the way in which we choose to cloth ourselves.
I hope that makes at least some sense. Everything you do reflects your view of the world. This includes the idea that the way your dress reflects your view of your job. At least to some extent.
Ok, now you are just being silly. Of couse safty takes precedence over appearence (but not everyone works in a machine shop, do they?) Of course you can wear a tie with a ratty t-shirt or a pit stained polo. THat is not really the point is it? The tie just symbolizes formality, as far as this discussion goes. Now obviously someone who belives in the importance of formality in the work place would not wear a tie with ratty clothes. So we can ingore arguments of this nature.
The REAL question is whether formality is a good thing to have in the workplace or (secondly) whether it is a valid grounds for promotion.
So, let me try to adress this question.
Consider this, if you are having a dinner party. Do you clean up the house some first? (Most people do.) Why? It is not nessesarily functional to have the floor vacumed. Having the bathrooms clean does not make the food taste better. But cleaning the house shows RESPECT for your company. It shows then that you care about them enough to go a little beyond what is absolutely nessesary. IN effect you are saying that "I know you may not really care about athetics while you eat, but this is a way of showing you that i don't mind going a little out of my way for you."
Formality has the same function in the workplace. It shows those whom you work with that you respect your job and that you don't mind trying to look nice while you are working. It shows your boss that think enough of your work to present what is considered a "professional" appearence. Dressing formally at work is a way to make a constant, passive, outward showing of your attitude about your work. It is so wrong for a boss to take into considerations his employee's attitudes as well as performance when giving a promotion? Esp between two equally (or near equally) skilled people.
Again, looking at the dinner party example. Lets say that you are invited to two dinner parties on the same night. For the sake of argument, they are both to be catered by the same company. NOw you know that at person A's house you will find a clean house, sparkling bathroons, vacumed carpets, and all that stuff (the suit and tie, if you will). At person B's house, you will find a house that is in disaray. Magzines and newspapers scaattered across the floor. A bathroom that is in disaray stained walls, ect. (ratty t-shirt and stained polo).
NOw since the dinner is catered, there is no reason to worry about quality or sanitation of food (quality of work is the same). SO which house do you go to? House A or house B? I think most of us would rather go to house A. Even though the presentation has no effect on the taste of the food. WE just feel that that person appreciates us more, cares more about the party, ect. and it is that attitude that we like.
Similarely, in the workplace, if the quality of work done is nearly the same, it is quite reasonable to take into account the attitude that people chose to present while at work. SOme of the attitude that we have towards our work is the way in which we choose to cloth ourselves.
I hope that makes at least some sense. Everything you do reflects your view of the world. This includes the idea that the way your dress reflects your view of your job. At least to some extent.
Well, there may be hope. Not all of his books are in the SF section. "The Big U" is almost always found in the "literature" section (whatever that means) or the plain old fiction section.
Granted, this is prolly his least populare book (i acutally enjoyed it) and it was his first. So he hadn't really been pigeonholed by marketers yet. But at least there is a precidence for him not having all of his book in SF. So perhaps this book will end up keeping the lonely "the big U" company on the fiction shelves.
"Nanotechnology now means any process for determining structure or composition at a molecular scale."
Which, of course, is itself a poor definition. Biochemists have been determining stucture and and composition of proteins (at the moleculare scale) and DNA (agian, moleculare scale) for quite some time now. But we do not consider this to be nanotechnology. People have been creating drugs AND fules this way too. For quite some time. Drug companies do not call thenselves nanotech either.
I think a much better definition of nanotechnology or nonscience as this;
Nanotech or nano science is the area of research that deals with materials at the scale in which both the bulk properties and quantum properties of the material are manifest and important.
I think using a definition such as this is less confusing and more informative.
Thus, very small electronics could be considered nano-tech. This is becuase, in that case, a bulk property like the plasmon resonance is dependent on the size of the particle (the "virtual quantum well" in wich it resides, if you will).
THings like that are what appear to really be nanotech to me.
But then again, i might be crazy.
AIDS is a BL2. It SHOULD be a BL 3 (no cure, but can be treated). However, for logistical reasons it is a BL2. Otherwise (if it was BL3, then blood drives would have to be done in a BL3 facility, all research on donated blook would have to be done in a BL3 facility, ect. At least until you checked to see if it contained HIV.
At least that is what i was told when i worked with human blood. It is balisically a logistic thing, owing to the fact that AIDS is fairly prevelent.
And what is the right way, may i ask?
Really, there is no really good way to describe atoms. Sure you can say that QM is the way to go, but as someone else pointed out, the simplistic model of orbiting electrons works quite nice in may situations.
QM also has its failures. For instance, in calculating certain molecular orbital energies, using just a strict ionic resonance (the desciption that you would arrive at by just basic valence considerations) is much more accurate than the energy arrived at by adding into it covalent resonance character (what we get from QM considerations).
In the end, we just kinda use what seems to work best, quickest, or most with the least amount of work. That is the way of things. Sure we don't tell kids the earth in flat, but we don't really use the considerations of the curved earth everyday, do we? We say that we are "going over to our freinds house" not "going over and down, due to the cuvature of the earth, to our friends house." It would just be rediculous to say that. It is way more information than is needed in the cirmunstance.
By the same measure, it is not nessesary to underatnd QM, LCAO MO, SALC, Hartree Fock, or any of that other crap to understand that one Na combines with one Cl to make table salt now is it?
Most HS students will not really go on to use chemistry, they do not need to know QM to get by in the real world. And most of them will shy away from math. Perhaps this sounds bad, but really what we need to do is give them the best ahndle on chemistry possible. IN some cases this will mean making consetions and realizing that most people dont give a flying squirles rat's ass about chem, and teaching them acocurndingly.
In the end, if we can teach people enough chem so that they realize that some things are bad for them and others are good, then i think we have accounplished our job. If some of these people want to devote themseslves to years of esoteric research, then all the better, but we HAVE to reach the common man (boy) too.
Just my thoughts, perhaps a bit long, but i always get upset when people say "we are teaching inccorect stuff." Becuase, really, we are teaching stuff, that while perhaps not as accurate as possible, is stuff that really works in the real world.
Sorry if that sounded kinda bad, but really, what is wrong with working your way up conceptually, esp if the easier concepts work for 99.9% of the probelms the average person will encounter?
actually, mercury is not too teribly horrible to ingest. In fact, for some stomach illnesses, mercury is prescribed and ingested on a regulare basis. This is not to say that you should expose yourself to mercury just for the fun of it, but in the liquid phase it is not as bad as you would think.
:)
Where mercury really gets you is in the vapor phase. Breathing mecury vapor is really bad for you.
I guess this is not really all that important to point out, but i just thought you might like to know
well, we probably are, however, it is not for the same reason. Adaptive response is thought to be observed because the low dose of posion causes a repair mechanism to be turned on. THus when a larger dose is incountered the cells are already primed to handle the posion. HOwever, because adaptive response in in effect just a "warming up" of the cell's natural repair mechanisms, so to speak, the effect only lasts so long. This is because once you remove teh cells from the posion, the repair mechanism will eventually shut down, thus the cell is no longer primed to handle the posion.
Anyway, this resistance is a natural effect for the cells, and only lasts for a short while. THus the increased resistance has nothing to do with a modified gene base. HOWEVER, the degree to which this phenomenon is observed (that is, how well the adaptive response protects the cells) IS most likely due to some sort of variation in differnt cells genes. THus, this can be selected for.
Thus, we are, in fact, breeding roaches that are tougher and tougher to kill with posion. But the fact that adaptive response happens has nothing to do with this. Just the degree to which it happens.
I hope this makes sense, i am not too sure i explained it that well. Feel free to ask any questions that you might have. COOL
You are certainly correct. We used very high dose rates. I think about the highest was...lets see, like 2 cGy over like a minute. Yeah, so much much higher.
:)
Yeah, i guess that i am leaping a bit to suppose that hormesis and adaptive response are one and teh same, but i don't think it is too much of a leap. Good catch though
Well, we looked at individual cells within a population (we used both human derived cell lines, and white blood cells taken from exposed rats) to determine the amount of damage sustained by individual cells within different populations. However, in order to be able to report any of our findings, we had to do statistics on all the data for particulare populations. SO, i guess that while you can observe adaptive response on an individual cell basis, it doesn't really make any sense until you take the entire population in to account.
WEll, i hope that answers your question.
At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is know as adaptive response. The acticle is slightly misleading though. What is actually observed is that organisms which are exposed to small quantities of a toxin (lets say radiation) before being given a larger dose will experience less damage than those who were exposed to the larger dose without the small "priming" dose.
For example, cells in group A are exposed to a small dose, of raidation, given a few hours to sit around and then are exposed to a large dose of radiation. Group B is exposed to the large dose or radiatoin only. It can then be observed that group A suffers less damage (we quantified it by looking at the damage to the chromosomes, translocations, ect.) than those in group B.
Some caveates to this are...
-If the large dose of radiation is too large, you will not see this adaptive response.
-The time that the cells must wait after teh priming dose is about 6 hours, to short or too long a time and the adaptive response is not observed
-The priming dose also must be within a range of certain values for adaptive response to take place
-In some cases, you see a synergisti response in the radiation. That is the cells exposed to the priming and large dose experience MORE radiation than is expected from just the sum of the radiation that they were exposed too
All the research we did pointed to the fact that there is probably some kind of repair mechanism that is turned on when chromosomes are damaged. By exposing cells to a small priming dose of radiation, you have turned on this mechanism. Thus, when you expose the cells to the larger dose of radiation this repair mechanism is already turned on and the cell can more readily deal with the damage than other cells that have not recived this priming dose.
THis is pretty cool research when you think about it. I mean it affeects alot of stuff, esp in the medical feild. Think about chemotherapy. The idea is to kill cancer by exposing it to a dose or posion. However, the dose that is given is just caculated by body mass. This research alludes to the fact, however, that not all peope will respond the same to long term exposure to posoins. THe long term exposer acts almost like many many priming doses, and, in those people that exhibit greater adaptive response, the therapy will then be less effective. INtersting, no?
Also, there have been several different studies concerning geographical location in the US vs cancer frequecies (melenoma, to be exact). It was found that peope who lived in higher elevations (and thus recieved contiually doses of radiation that were higher than those at low elevations) had less occurance of skin cancer, than those of us at lower elevations. It is definatly hard to prove any connection, but hte thought was that this higher dose of radiation acted like a priming dose and then the higher doses of radiation that people are exposed to durring the summer had less of an effect.
Anyways, i just wanted to vouch for the article and say that the stuff the are talking about (however, misrepresented) does exist. THe practicalitly of it, and how much you should let it affect your behavior (still wear sunscreen!) is up to you. IT is not a very well understood phenomenon, but it is still cool.
SWEET!
i was just wondering if you would lista few of the alternatives to copyright that you alluded to in your post. I find your post extremely interesting, but i think that the idea is incomplete without at least one alternative. I don't doubt that they are out there, or that i could easily cind them on the net, however, i was curious what you would say, seeing as how you have obviously thought thouroughly about this subject already.
:D
Thanks
yes, the natural extension is that even crime is not outside of nature. We can see that this is indeed true. What is crime, other than a set of actions that is not considered appropriate by society? In most cases crimes are ways of "cheating" (ie. stealing, fruad, rape, ect.) They are ways of gaining an advantage without putting in the work. This is seen in nature too. THere are birds (i forget with ones) that will lay eggs in another birds nest, so that they can have offspring without putting in the effort. There are animals that will wait till one animal has killed its meal, and then it will steal that meat.
:P
So you see, "crime" is all over nature, it is totally natural. However, as a society, we have decided that we do not value such actions, moreoever, that we will punish such actions. It is really a socities survival strategy, to limit the actions of others, and to punish those that act out side of these limits.
Now i am not saying that we should not have laws, i rather think that an ordered society is more fun to live in than a chaotic one. However, we need to realize that crime, as we call it, is a totally natural action, and that the only reason that it is considered bad is that society, as a collective, has adopted a survival stragegy that tries to limit those that will not work. That is all
I am not sure this is clear, but i hope it is.
As for karma, yeah there is some bad moderation, but that is just the way it goes. People don't like being forced to think, so they mod it down.
"We are also "chemicals" as you nicely put it. The human will is a conceit of the human mind. Actually, even the human "mind" is a conceit. All you are doing is defining a model for life and then saying that since genes do not follow your model, they do not live. This is a meaningless argument."
This is not meaningless, this is how all arguments are carried out. You define what you mean by something and then see if that definition works. But that is off topic...
Genes are not just dumb chemicals, eh? Why? You must give a reason for this acertion, if i am to belive it. Are all chemicals "alive" and have a will. Do chemicals have a "will" to react with others? Perhaps Nitrogen prefers to be N2 other than in NH4? What of rocks? Is there will to sit around and eventually reach the bottom of the graitational well? Perhaps this seems like a stupid argument. But this is what i am trying to ask; what, in your mind, differnetiats that with life from that without life?
As for genes ruling the universe....what about protiens? Perhaps they are the true rules of the universe.
The little bugger's WILL to reproduce?
Since when are chemicals considered to have wills? If they don't they can't be frustrated in the way that you are claiming, and as such your argument that they are not being tortured.
They are, however, being altered from their "natural" course. Or are they? Aren't humans part of nature? If we are, if we are a product of nature, how can we ever do anything that is outside of what is natural? Then us playing with genes is just anohter part of nature, albeit a new aspect of nature.
OK, so are you saying that the line broadening is cuased by the fact that you see several diffferent orientations or stars at the same time? So this is an inhomogenious line broadening. Much like that observed for phenomenon like doppler broadening? Where you would not see line braodening if you observed only one star, but you would see line broadening when you observe the entire cluster.
Or are you saying that there is line broadening do the the fast rotation in the individual stars. that is, you would still see line broadeneing if you were only able to observe a single star.
50% smaller? Wow, this must be spinning incredibly fast. With so must mass being displaced from where it would be in a sphere, it must effect the pressure inside the star. As such, i wonder how much this effects the fusion within the star. Since fusion is driven by the compressional forces of the suns mass, the effective reduced mass must reduce the energy output of this star. RIght?
Perhps i don't really kow what i am talking about.
Thank you. Yeah, you had a great point. I think that you got trolled because people couldn't see past you delivery :P. Oh well. ALso i think that some people are threatened by your challenge to the argument that they have just kinda blindly accepted forever. But people are kinda that way. But it has turned into an interesting discussion nonetheless =)
Regardless, it is always refreshing to see someone that actually thinks about what is being told to them, and can figure out when it is rubbish.
BTW, i added you to my friends list too. Laters(
I am going to say this as kindly as i can...
Have you actually read the link that you gave me?
What the link said under the heading "In the context of measuring sizes of sets" is exactly what i had said in the post that you originally relpied to. I kid you not. For instance, from the link that you provided, "What is really surprising is that there are other infinite sets which do not have the same size as the set of integers! For instance, the set of all real numbers is a
much bigger set [than the set of natural numbers]."
This is exactly what i had stated earlier. I just proceeded to take this truth out to its inevetable conclusion. I think that we both agree that there are differing sizes of infinity. Thus if you have a larger infinity it cannot fit inside the set of smaller infinities. That is, if you have a set A that is infinite, and you have a set B that is a larger infinity, then set B cannot be mapped one to one onto set A. There is not enough elements in set A for set B to be mapped one to one.
This is the same as every real number cannot be assigned to a coresponding natural number, there are not enough natural numbers to do this. You see?
that must mean that if you have a number of possible things (on the order of the real numbers) to do and so much time to do it (on the order of the natural numbers) then you cannot do everything that is possible.
It is a natural conclusion, stemming from the differing sizes of infinities, that something is not possible, just becuaes you have an infinite amount of time.
Yeah, i think that adresses that. BTW, i DO indeed have too much time on my hands, i am a grad student, and so i really have nothing to do all day, except sit around and learn =)
"your logic is seriously flawed, sorry. and your choice of examples is... hmmm... interesting."
Well, i certainly welcome the oppertunity to hear another point of view, and if you would be so kind as to point out where my logic is flawed, i would appreciate it. I do sometimes seem to just write and it is hard to find the errors in your own reasoning sometimes.
So yea, if you would be so kind to actually list what i said that was wrong instead of just telling me, then perhaps i could learn something from you post.