I've often wondered whether gravity is really exactly a one-over-r-squared phenomenon. I would think that between the curvature of space...
That's a bit like saying "I've often wondered whether or not there's a faster way to add numbers, I would think that between the invention of abaci, calculators and computers...". If you read this maybe you can catch up with the rest of the world.
It will be relatively easy for them to find something in all that complexity that may possibly be to blame, then totally ignore the possibility that this really might be an unknown external influence.
We know that there are human genes that code for proteins used to store fat. We also know that Americans are among the most obese in the world, even though they are genetically diverse. These two facts are not in contradiction. Same goes for genes and religion.
Maybe Perfect Dark DS would be good too. I'm not sure what the license issues are but the game play is similar to GoldenEye and the music wasn't bad (though nowhere near as good as the Goldeneye music).
Actually, you might agree with me. It's just that I misfired. My intention was to target was the newspapers presenting a headline that sends the message that Canadians are anti-anti-terror and hence pro-terror. The Canadians have, of course, rejected certain specific laws rather than anti-terror laws in general. (But I have to admit, for some reason I find it easy to visualise Osama knitting and couldn't help alluding to it.)
...they're going to have to turn to more peaceful means to communicate their grievances. Expect to see Al-Qaeda sponsoring marathons and senior knit-a-thons.
The real question is not whether the criteria are met but whether the practitioners have the intention of seriously testing their theory by attempting to disprove it or not.
Weird. People have argued for a long time about definitions of science and there are very few definitive statements one can make that reliably categorise scientific practice. But surely there is one we can make: whatever science is, it has nothing to do with anyone's intentions. The intentions of practitioners are a private affair and they differ as widely the practitioners themselves. The whole point of the peer review process is that the intentions of practitioners, where scrupulous or not, should have no bearing on what is deemed valid science.
"Would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 7%
"Would you buy an Apple iPhone for $500?" 15%
"An iPhone looks as cool as a Mac or iPod. Would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 25%
"An iPhone is bigger than a RAZR. Would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 3%
"Given that you can't run your own apps on it, would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 5%
"The Democrats wield power in Congress. This means taxes may go up. Would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 3%
"Would you refuse to buy an iPhone for $500?" 85%
"It's Tuesday tomorrow. Would you refuse to buy an iPhone for $500?" 87%
"If someone were to ask you if you'd buy an iPhone, would you reply 'yes'?" 9%
...do you guys realise that an open source project received an Academy Award this year? I find it weird that it hasn't been reported much in the geek news outlets.
But I humbly invite you to consider that the ratio of of woman/man engineers is 5% greater today than it was 20 years ago; 10% greater than 40 years ago; and 100 years ago, women basically didn't engage in technical pursuits (except for rare, anomalous cases) and most technical schools didn't admit women.
Here is an invalid form of argument: We have a sequence of statements, A, B, C,...,Y, Z. We also have B=>A, C=>B, D=>C,..., Z=>Y. We know A, B, C,..., Y are true. Therefore Z is true.
In order to aid my consideration, could you point out where your argument differs from this?
I also ask you to consider this: suppose that at birth, more men than women have brains suitable for learning the tasks involved in engineering. In the past, humans, who are prone to rampant generalisations, have observed this, and as a result have concluded as a result that all women are incapable of engineering. As a result, women were systematically excluded from careers in engineering. With this hypothesis we'd expect to see (1) a reduced number of women in engineering in the past, (2) an increase in the number of women as the generalisation is corrected, and (3) a ceiling to the proportion of women who work in engineering that falls below 50%.
I know mathematics better than engineering so let me switch to that subject. I've seen no evidence today that women are selected against in the field of mathematics. I've never met a single mathematician who had the slightest desire to keep women out of mathematics. Just about every mathematician I have ever met has an interest in increasing the number of female mathematicians. So I certainly don't buy any conspiracy theory about women being kept out of mathematics. (But I do think the evidence is absolutely clear that women were selected against in the past.) As a result, I find it hard to imagine any mechanism for keeping women out of mathematics other than the ability or inclination of women themselves. On the other hand, maybe my imagination is lacking and you can help stimulate it.
> No, it's not 'bull'. It's a pretty good description of what's actually going on.
No, it's a perfectly decent objection. A quantum superposition of states is much less than 'hold[ing] all possible states" and to suggest that it is is misleading. For example, given an n-qubit system, you can store no more than n classical bits in it, rather than the 2^n or so that the "all posible states" picture suggests. Similarly we know that we can perform a quantum database search on N items in time sqrt(N) using Grover's algorithm and that this can't be beaten. So again a quantum computer acts like far less than N states existing in parallel.
> The wavefunction is the electron's position.
Funny how the wavefunction is supposedly the electron's position and yet every attempt to measure its position gives a definite point in space.
there simply is no efficient reason why the size of the codebase and the memory footprint has increased as much as it has
Are you on crack? Games are far more complex tham those of 15 years ago. People are printing far more detailed images than they ever used to (especially people who make prints from their 8 megapixel cameras). People read far more complex documents that 15 years ago (have you not actually noticed how complex a modern web page is compared to something you might have viewed on NCSA Mosaic, say?). People are writing far more complex documents than they used to. And as for collecting media, there's a big difference between having a couple of low res pics 15 years ago and having the entire collection of Jenna Jameson DVDs ripped to your hard drive today. Did the last 15 years just pass you by?
Slashdot Mirror
What part of YOU didn't you get?
I don't know about that. I've read the Bible and I'd rather be the mutant offspring of a monkey than the creation of a murderous hate-filled sadist.
We know that there are human genes that code for proteins used to store fat. We also know that Americans are among the most obese in the world, even though they are genetically diverse. These two facts are not in contradiction. Same goes for genes and religion.
How do you know it?
It's crappy writing but this notion plays a key role in Sawyer's Neanderthals trilogy.
What's wrong with ad hominems anyway? They're a perfectly decent form of argument, with solid backing from a simple application of Bayes' theorem.
Knight Lore, Ant Attack. These games would all work fine on the DS.
Maybe Perfect Dark DS would be good too. I'm not sure what the license issues are but the game play is similar to GoldenEye and the music wasn't bad (though nowhere near as good as the Goldeneye music).
Actually, you might agree with me. It's just that I misfired. My intention was to target was the newspapers presenting a headline that sends the message that Canadians are anti-anti-terror and hence pro-terror. The Canadians have, of course, rejected certain specific laws rather than anti-terror laws in general. (But I have to admit, for some reason I find it easy to visualise Osama knitting and couldn't help alluding to it.)
...they're going to have to turn to more peaceful means to communicate their grievances. Expect to see Al-Qaeda sponsoring marathons and senior knit-a-thons.
Hmmm...they must have stolen it from Rocheworld.
I'd also like to point out that there were no eye witnesses to the ascension of Jesus but there are lots of old dinosaur bones.
"Would you buy an Apple iPhone for $500?" 15%
"An iPhone looks as cool as a Mac or iPod. Would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 25%
"An iPhone is bigger than a RAZR. Would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 3%
"Given that you can't run your own apps on it, would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 5%
"The Democrats wield power in Congress. This means taxes may go up. Would you buy an iPhone for $500?" 3%
"Would you refuse to buy an iPhone for $500?" 85%
"It's Tuesday tomorrow. Would you refuse to buy an iPhone for $500?" 87%
"If someone were to ask you if you'd buy an iPhone, would you reply 'yes'?" 9%
Surveys, don't you love 'em!
...do you guys realise that an open source project received an Academy Award this year? I find it weird that it hasn't been reported much in the geek news outlets.
In order to aid my consideration, could you point out where your argument differs from this?
I also ask you to consider this: suppose that at birth, more men than women have brains suitable for learning the tasks involved in engineering. In the past, humans, who are prone to rampant generalisations, have observed this, and as a result have concluded as a result that all women are incapable of engineering. As a result, women were systematically excluded from careers in engineering. With this hypothesis we'd expect to see (1) a reduced number of women in engineering in the past, (2) an increase in the number of women as the generalisation is corrected, and (3) a ceiling to the proportion of women who work in engineering that falls below 50%.
I know mathematics better than engineering so let me switch to that subject. I've seen no evidence today that women are selected against in the field of mathematics. I've never met a single mathematician who had the slightest desire to keep women out of mathematics. Just about every mathematician I have ever met has an interest in increasing the number of female mathematicians. So I certainly don't buy any conspiracy theory about women being kept out of mathematics. (But I do think the evidence is absolutely clear that women were selected against in the past.) As a result, I find it hard to imagine any mechanism for keeping women out of mathematics other than the ability or inclination of women themselves. On the other hand, maybe my imagination is lacking and you can help stimulate it.
You don't need to tell someone whose sig is in Haskell about intuitionism :-)
Is there a rule that says we must wire up planets one at a time and that we can only start on one planet after we've finished the previous one?
Martian porn downloads plenty fast enough. The problem is the 40 minute lag by which time you've lost interest,
No, it's a perfectly decent objection. A quantum superposition of states is much less than 'hold[ing] all possible states" and to suggest that it is is misleading. For example, given an n-qubit system, you can store no more than n classical bits in it, rather than the 2^n or so that the "all posible states" picture suggests. Similarly we know that we can perform a quantum database search on N items in time sqrt(N) using Grover's algorithm and that this can't be beaten. So again a quantum computer acts like far less than N states existing in parallel.
> The wavefunction is the electron's position.
Funny how the wavefunction is supposedly the electron's position and yet every attempt to measure its position gives a definite point in space.