"Infinite" in actualized physical terms is meaningless
Set theory is the basic logic maths is built on, it didn't change much for over 2000yrs. About a century ago people like Cantor, Godel, Russell, and many others started looking at set theory and infinities. The line of enquiry culminated with Godel's incompleteness theorem showing that any and every set of things is dependent on something else outside the set, add what is outside the set and you still have something else outside the new set. Godel's discovery that maths is "incomplete" (contains unprovable truths) destroyed what Russell and others had been trying to do with their Principia Mathematica- show that all mathematical truths can be mechanically derived from a set of fundamental axioms (Newton's "clockwork universe").
In other words Godel discovered that (maths says) the Universe (with a capital U) is "turtles all the way down" (and up).
If the results match your prediction, then yes that's good evidence, do it a few more times and we've got something serious to talk about.
You mean like climate models correctly predicting phenomena before the phenomena was observed in nature, such as, "Stratospheric cooling", "polar amplification", and the global cooling effect from a large volcanic eruption ( AKA Mt Pinatubo). There are dozens of "blind predictions" for those who care to actually look at the forecasting (and hindcasting) skill of aggregate climate models.
At the end of the day, all of science is a model, the question is why do people who obviously haven't looked at climate models doubt their utility? Why do others doubt the evolutionary model of life, or the tectonic plate model? - Those kind of doubts do not come from scientific skepticism, they come from industry funded propagandists such as the heartland institute and are then disseminated through the opinion pages of papers such as the wall street journal.
Conflating communist dictators with socialists is like conflating the "Democratic Republic of Congo" with democracy. The Scandinavian countries are socialist and have been at the top of every standard of living survey for decades.
We have already seen the point where the universe turns from an opaque plasma soup into transparent space. IIRC that's why the first cosmic background pics were called "the face of god".
Depending on where the units were placed, it's quite possible that the operating temperature would exceed 43 degrees even if the ambient temperature was below that.
Yes, official temperature readings measure the air temperature and are always taken in the shade. When the weatherman says the temp is 43deg, it's more like 53deg in direct sunlight.
All of these engine releases of late seem to have very reasonable terms. From the Unreal Engine 4 FAQ
How much do I have to pay for Unreal Engine 4?
UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products. Read the EULA FAQ for more details.
I’m a consultant. Do I owe royalties on consulting fees?
No.
I think the reason for this is they all want to become the defacto-standard, they are all very keen to create a developer community around their toolset. Personally I like the UE4 / PhysX sales model since you don't pay until you make money from it. I'm interested in playing with these engines as a hobby but have no interest in writing a commercial game, If I was serious about developing and selling games, the license fees for any of the popular engines would be a very minor concern, it's a great example of a capitalist "win-win".
Selling model content to use in these engines is where the money is for individual devs/artists, kind of like the people who sold shovels during the gold rush. IIRC UE4 has some sort of public marketplace where you can release/sell models you have created.
I think you're saying the same thing with different words. Yes the target is the EPA, and the method employed is to put (inconvenient) Science on a short leash.
I have no idea if the claims in the article are accurate or not
I suspect the article is full of half-truths, for example, legal aid for nutjobs to sue the government is nothing new, nor are the funds limited to green groups.
Men are constantly portrayed in both advertising and entertainment as buffoons and simpletons when they are anywhere near the kitchen, the kids, or the laundry. Everyone laughs when a man is kicked in the balls by a woman in a TV show/commercial. Where's the fake outrage about that violent sexisim in the name of humour?
I strongly suspect the paper was a "joke", and the reviewer was sarcastically reflecting the paper's bias back at the authors.
Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
This is an excellent example of how well-crafted political propaganda works. The act of introducing the bill implies the EPA are not already basing policy on publicly available data, opposing the bill implies you want to hide something from the public. Even if the bill fails to pass, it has already succeeded as a propaganda piece.
Make no mistake, this is a far-right attempt to put Science on a short leash.
..is as usual relying on the ignorance of the public. For example one of the long time complaints about the "hockey stick" from the deniers in the US senate was that a small portion of the raw data could not be published due to (default) copyright terms imposed by the french and a couple of other geographically small nations. The data was available but you had to go to the French government and wait six months to get it. There are lots of other cases where data is collected from industry and individuals where those supplying the data do not want the raw data published for legal, commercial, or personal reasons. The basic rule of research is you take what data you can get and publish what you are allowed to by those who supply it.
A more useful law would be to force anti-science "charities" such as the heartland institute to reveal their accounts to the public, if the IPCC and EPA can do it why can't a tax exempt no-think tank do the same?
Pollutant = A resource in the wrong place, as in "do not pollute my scotch with water". The evidence of harm caused by 1/2 trillion tons of CO2 in the wrong place may not be clear to you, but it is to almost everyone who has actually looked at it with a scientific eye. AFAICT the senate republicans think an appropriate mission for the EPA is to STFU and mow the whitehouse lawn.
Insensitive? - IBM saw the dotcom bust coming, they knew layoffs would follow so they forced all the workers to watch a video called "who moved my cheese".
There's enough space junk whizzing around Earth now, why pollute the space around other planets if it can be avoided? There's also the possibility of doing "last minute" science as the probe descends that cannot be done from orbit, eg: atmospheric sampling.
AFAIK the only thing that is censored in an R18 rated game/movie is explicit sexual violence (rape porn), CP, explicit beastiality, etc. For a long while there was no R18 rating for games, they were assumed to be for children so the highest rating was MA16. Game studios would deliberately get a "banned" for publicity reasons, but unrated games have always been legally available on the net.
We don't have a 'viable [domestic] market' for big budget movies/games because of our tiny population, nothing to do with our movie rating system which is far more permissive than most of our neighbours in SE Asia. Hollywood movies are typically shot on location in AU/NZ because it's cheaper than making them in the Hollywood.
NVidia have freely available, user hardened, linux drivers for all of their hardware, and a large scientific/gaming community that uses them. Same deal for NVidia's windows drivers.
Will they [boycott NVidia]? Probably not.
...because...
- They will flush 50% or more of their own revenue down the toilet.
- It sounds too much like extortion/ant-trust, and is probably illegal.
- NVidia already comply with their stated goal.
Slashdot Mirror
When will smurf hammers hit the stores?
The human mind seems to be better suited to imaging infinity than it is imaging nothing.
"Infinite" in actualized physical terms is meaningless
Set theory is the basic logic maths is built on, it didn't change much for over 2000yrs. About a century ago people like Cantor, Godel, Russell, and many others started looking at set theory and infinities. The line of enquiry culminated with Godel's incompleteness theorem showing that any and every set of things is dependent on something else outside the set, add what is outside the set and you still have something else outside the new set. Godel's discovery that maths is "incomplete" (contains unprovable truths) destroyed what Russell and others had been trying to do with their Principia Mathematica- show that all mathematical truths can be mechanically derived from a set of fundamental axioms (Newton's "clockwork universe").
In other words Godel discovered that (maths says) the Universe (with a capital U) is "turtles all the way down" (and up).
The relativity of wrong.
If the results match your prediction, then yes that's good evidence, do it a few more times and we've got something serious to talk about.
You mean like climate models correctly predicting phenomena before the phenomena was observed in nature, such as, "Stratospheric cooling", "polar amplification", and the global cooling effect from a large volcanic eruption ( AKA Mt Pinatubo). There are dozens of "blind predictions" for those who care to actually look at the forecasting (and hindcasting) skill of aggregate climate models.
At the end of the day, all of science is a model, the question is why do people who obviously haven't looked at climate models doubt their utility? Why do others doubt the evolutionary model of life, or the tectonic plate model? - Those kind of doubts do not come from scientific skepticism, they come from industry funded propagandists such as the heartland institute and are then disseminated through the opinion pages of papers such as the wall street journal.
So, we can know nothing about the Earth whatsoever because there's only one of them?
Its a fallacy that increasing temperatures by a few degrees will mean more deserts.
Google "Hadley Cells" - more deserts AND more rain.
Conflating communist dictators with socialists is like conflating the "Democratic Republic of Congo" with democracy. The Scandinavian countries are socialist and have been at the top of every standard of living survey for decades.
We have already seen the point where the universe turns from an opaque plasma soup into transparent space. IIRC that's why the first cosmic background pics were called "the face of god".
Depending on where the units were placed, it's quite possible that the operating temperature would exceed 43 degrees even if the ambient temperature was below that.
Yes, official temperature readings measure the air temperature and are always taken in the shade. When the weatherman says the temp is 43deg, it's more like 53deg in direct sunlight.
[Parents] are responsible for their kids' actions, no?
No, but they are usually on the hook for the bill.
How much do I have to pay for Unreal Engine 4?
UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products. Read the EULA FAQ for more details.
I’m a consultant. Do I owe royalties on consulting fees?
No.
I think the reason for this is they all want to become the defacto-standard, they are all very keen to create a developer community around their toolset. Personally I like the UE4 / PhysX sales model since you don't pay until you make money from it. I'm interested in playing with these engines as a hobby but have no interest in writing a commercial game, If I was serious about developing and selling games, the license fees for any of the popular engines would be a very minor concern, it's a great example of a capitalist "win-win".
Selling model content to use in these engines is where the money is for individual devs/artists, kind of like the people who sold shovels during the gold rush. IIRC UE4 has some sort of public marketplace where you can release/sell models you have created.
I have no idea if the claims in the article are accurate or not
I suspect the article is full of half-truths, for example, legal aid for nutjobs to sue the government is nothing new, nor are the funds limited to green groups.
Men are constantly portrayed in both advertising and entertainment as buffoons and simpletons when they are anywhere near the kitchen, the kids, or the laundry. Everyone laughs when a man is kicked in the balls by a woman in a TV show/commercial. Where's the fake outrage about that violent sexisim in the name of humour?
I strongly suspect the paper was a "joke", and the reviewer was sarcastically reflecting the paper's bias back at the authors.
Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
This is an excellent example of how well-crafted political propaganda works. The act of introducing the bill implies the EPA are not already basing policy on publicly available data, opposing the bill implies you want to hide something from the public. Even if the bill fails to pass, it has already succeeded as a propaganda piece.
Make no mistake, this is a far-right attempt to put Science on a short leash.
..is as usual relying on the ignorance of the public. For example one of the long time complaints about the "hockey stick" from the deniers in the US senate was that a small portion of the raw data could not be published due to (default) copyright terms imposed by the french and a couple of other geographically small nations. The data was available but you had to go to the French government and wait six months to get it. There are lots of other cases where data is collected from industry and individuals where those supplying the data do not want the raw data published for legal, commercial, or personal reasons. The basic rule of research is you take what data you can get and publish what you are allowed to by those who supply it.
A more useful law would be to force anti-science "charities" such as the heartland institute to reveal their accounts to the public, if the IPCC and EPA can do it why can't a tax exempt no-think tank do the same?
Pollutant = A resource in the wrong place, as in "do not pollute my scotch with water". The evidence of harm caused by 1/2 trillion tons of CO2 in the wrong place may not be clear to you, but it is to almost everyone who has actually looked at it with a scientific eye. AFAICT the senate republicans think an appropriate mission for the EPA is to STFU and mow the whitehouse lawn.
Insensitive? - IBM saw the dotcom bust coming, they knew layoffs would follow so they forced all the workers to watch a video called "who moved my cheese".
Ex 1980's taxi driver here, public holidays are dead times, surge times used to be called Friday and Saturday night, but the price didn't change.
You regard being called 'human' denigrating?
The sides of the trench are tectonic plates, both plates are diving into the crust, in 2000yrs the drums will be absorbed into the crust.
There's enough space junk whizzing around Earth now, why pollute the space around other planets if it can be avoided? There's also the possibility of doing "last minute" science as the probe descends that cannot be done from orbit, eg: atmospheric sampling.
How to piss off an Aussie
AFAIK the only thing that is censored in an R18 rated game/movie is explicit sexual violence (rape porn), CP, explicit beastiality, etc. For a long while there was no R18 rating for games, they were assumed to be for children so the highest rating was MA16. Game studios would deliberately get a "banned" for publicity reasons, but unrated games have always been legally available on the net.
We don't have a 'viable [domestic] market' for big budget movies/games because of our tiny population, nothing to do with our movie rating system which is far more permissive than most of our neighbours in SE Asia. Hollywood movies are typically shot on location in AU/NZ because it's cheaper than making them in the Hollywood.
stated goal of legitimizing Linux Gaming
NVidia have freely available, user hardened, linux drivers for all of their hardware, and a large scientific/gaming community that uses them. Same deal for NVidia's windows drivers.
Will they [boycott NVidia]? Probably not.
...because...
- They will flush 50% or more of their own revenue down the toilet.
- It sounds too much like extortion/ant-trust, and is probably illegal.
- NVidia already comply with their stated goal.