Nope, I wrote it. And I'll write it again: if you are ever elected for office, you won't read the bills either, you will have an aid who reads them and tells you what they say.
Have you ever try reading a bill? It's like reading source code, except with parts missing. Not all legislators have the skills to read that kind of thing. As long as they understand what is in the bill, that is good enough.
The best way to do it would be to try on a small scale first, then if it works out, great; but if it doesn't, not too much harm has been done.
So in the US, you would start by converting one state to direct democracy (or even one city or county), then over time, if it works, scale it up to the national level. But I don't think it will work, I think direct democracy requires an informed electorate, and I personally don't want to become informed enough on every issue. For example, I don't want to research regulations on crab fishing, or many other topics. Not worth the effort required to make good decisions.
I was more wondering how the average is calculated
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you.
I downloaded the datasets once and started looking at them, and figuring out an "average" is tough. Here's one map from NASA that gives some idea of Germany but I'm sure there are others.
There are so many complications. Some averages are only for land, others try to take into consideration land and oceans. Of course, ocean temperature records don't go back as far, and in some cases involved a ship dropping a bucket into the ocean and sticking a thermometer in the bucket.
Then of course there are thermometers that disappear over time, and urban heat islands, and heat islands from improved irrigation.
I pretty much gave up trying to understand how to average out the temperature record, and now I just look at the satellite record and consider it more accurate (of course, that only goes back to the 70s, but you can't have everything).
Yes. Astrology makes valid, testable scientific predictions. Therefore it is a scientific theory (or hypothesis, if you like it that way).
It is unfortunate that it has been proven false many, many times, but not every scientific theory has to be true.
So, unless String theory is completely untestable in principle, regardless of potential future technological advances, it is science albeit science which is currently impossible to test with current technology.
That is what the article claims to be. It mentions that if we could test for Super-Symmetry it would support String Theory, but that String Theory is not the only theory that predicts it. The author claims that there is no test that can be done that would prove String Theory true as opposed to other theories.
It's been long established that people are surrounded by a "filter bubble" online, where they're only exposed to viewpoints they already agree with
That's why on Slashdot sometimes I friend people I disagree with, if they are able to make a well-reasoned argument (even if I disagree with that argument).
No. Climatology, even if you are the biggest skeptic, makes testable predictions all the time. For example, predictions that the earth will be two degrees warmer in 100 years. That is completely testable: it will take 100 years to test it, but that's irrelevant.
An untestable theory is one that can never be tested, even with infinite time and resources. For example, "the universe was created as-is five minutes ago." Maybe that's true, but there's no way to test it. Even if you had a time machine, it still couldn't be tested. There is no experiment that can be imagined to test this.
In the case of string theory, the author claims that string theory makes no predictions that distinguish it from the standard model. That is, if you perform an experiment, you will not know if it is supporting string theory, or if it's just a natural result of the standard model.
It doesn't really matter......imagine there is only a.00001% chance of a star having a planet like earth. That means there are still billions of stars with planets like earth, just because there are so many stars, and so many galaxies.
Well, Google has a car without a steering wheel, and the DARPA challenge was won a while ago, but that doesn't mean we have the technology for a street legal car without a steering wheel.
I think what you are saying is that the map will never accurate represent the actual world. In that case, I agree with you, and I will actually be astonished if it works. Pleasantly astonished, but astonished nonetheless.
Also, agile techniques definitely don't work with self-driving cars. Can you imagine an OTA update that isn't quite right, and ends up killing 15000 people?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you say that out loud?
Nope, I wrote it. And I'll write it again: if you are ever elected for office, you won't read the bills either, you will have an aid who reads them and tells you what they say.
One form of security would be to allow each voter to verify their vote online after the fact.
It needs to be secure and anonymous. If you can verify it online after the fact, then it's not anonymous.
Yeah, you are right, it's more complicated.
Have you ever try reading a bill? It's like reading source code, except with parts missing. Not all legislators have the skills to read that kind of thing. As long as they understand what is in the bill, that is good enough.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quo... [brainyquote.com]
A rare moment of honesty from a politician.
The best way to do it would be to try on a small scale first, then if it works out, great; but if it doesn't, not too much harm has been done.
So in the US, you would start by converting one state to direct democracy (or even one city or county), then over time, if it works, scale it up to the national level. But I don't think it will work, I think direct democracy requires an informed electorate, and I personally don't want to become informed enough on every issue. For example, I don't want to research regulations on crab fishing, or many other topics. Not worth the effort required to make good decisions.
What? You can't have everything.
I was more wondering how the average is calculated
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you.
I downloaded the datasets once and started looking at them, and figuring out an "average" is tough. Here's one map from NASA that gives some idea of Germany but I'm sure there are others.
There are so many complications. Some averages are only for land, others try to take into consideration land and oceans. Of course, ocean temperature records don't go back as far, and in some cases involved a ship dropping a bucket into the ocean and sticking a thermometer in the bucket.
Then of course there are thermometers that disappear over time, and urban heat islands, and heat islands from improved irrigation.
I pretty much gave up trying to understand how to average out the temperature record, and now I just look at the satellite record and consider it more accurate (of course, that only goes back to the 70s, but you can't have everything).
That's a difficulty for sure. It's just a difficulty though, the predictions are still testable.
I would not be so certain about that.
I am lol.
Because as bad as politicians are, they are still better-informed than the general population.
I don't want government looking like a Facebook feed.
The definitions of the two are conflated by English. Hypothesis is kind of clear, but theory has many definitions in acceptable use.
Yes. Astrology makes valid, testable scientific predictions. Therefore it is a scientific theory (or hypothesis, if you like it that way).
It is unfortunate that it has been proven false many, many times, but not every scientific theory has to be true.
The second that we get an experimental signature for something like String Theory
What sort of thing would you do to get an experimental signature for String Theory?
To put it briefly.......
This image should clarify things.
So, unless String theory is completely untestable in principle, regardless of potential future technological advances, it is science albeit science which is currently impossible to test with current technology.
That is what the article claims to be. It mentions that if we could test for Super-Symmetry it would support String Theory, but that String Theory is not the only theory that predicts it. The author claims that there is no test that can be done that would prove String Theory true as opposed to other theories.
It's been long established that people are surrounded by a "filter bubble" online, where they're only exposed to viewpoints they already agree with
That's why on Slashdot sometimes I friend people I disagree with, if they are able to make a well-reasoned argument (even if I disagree with that argument).
No. Climatology, even if you are the biggest skeptic, makes testable predictions all the time. For example, predictions that the earth will be two degrees warmer in 100 years. That is completely testable: it will take 100 years to test it, but that's irrelevant.
An untestable theory is one that can never be tested, even with infinite time and resources. For example, "the universe was created as-is five minutes ago." Maybe that's true, but there's no way to test it. Even if you had a time machine, it still couldn't be tested. There is no experiment that can be imagined to test this.
In the case of string theory, the author claims that string theory makes no predictions that distinguish it from the standard model. That is, if you perform an experiment, you will not know if it is supporting string theory, or if it's just a natural result of the standard model.
It doesn't really matter......imagine there is only a .00001% chance of a star having a planet like earth. That means there are still billions of stars with planets like earth, just because there are so many stars, and so many galaxies.
Well, Google has a car without a steering wheel, and the DARPA challenge was won a while ago, but that doesn't mean we have the technology for a street legal car without a steering wheel.
I think what you are saying is that the map will never accurate represent the actual world. In that case, I agree with you, and I will actually be astonished if it works. Pleasantly astonished, but astonished nonetheless.
Also, agile techniques definitely don't work with self-driving cars. Can you imagine an OTA update that isn't quite right, and ends up killing 15000 people?
Also, who gets to decide what's disparaging or not?
Nobody anymore, according to the supreme court.
What if someone decides that words like "Christian" are disparaging?
That's why this is a good decision by the supreme court.
With more or less success, of course.
lol there's a lot of variance in that phrase.......
Most likely because their spouse/boy/girlfriend harasses them until they do. That seems to be the normal reason.