Or is the GUT just a regular function that emerges from a few sub-evaluators that are part of The Evaluator. Our brain is an evaluator and we each have our own "function" and when they agree on something they modify The Function that is said to emerge from The Chaos of The Universe.
Taking it one step further a cell is an evaluator that was constructed by a function that emerges from the cell's construction.
The inexplicable power of mathematics to predict the behaviour of the Universe is telling us something about what we call 'mind'. Finding that 'something' would be as revolutionary as Copernicus, Darwin or Eienstien all of whom moved man away from the center of creation.
Hah - Years ago a boss of mine wrote a journal article about pen based computing the revolved around an O/S called penpoint. The article metioned MS's contribution that was marketed as 'Windows for pen'. The typo was a missing space that resulted in the phrase...
Yep, that's why the punishment for speeding often varies with the degree of mania. Example...
1-5km over the limit - nobody cares.
5+km over, a speed camera will get upset - $50 fine, 1 demerit point.
15+km over, a cop gets upset - $150 fine, 2 demerit points.
30+km over, a judge gets upset - $500 fine, licence torn up.
I read your link and countered with another that you failed to comprehend/read. The link clearly support what I was saying, and yes, bumping the reactor into a higher orbit is another option but how does that help if you can't communicate with it?
Here are a couple of quotes from my link...
"The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry,..."
"...plutonium dioxide which survived reentry into the Earth's atmosphere intact, as it was designed to do"
Ummm I started the post with...'The reactors (as used since the soviet crash 30yrs ago)...'. Cosmos 954 was soviet, used a reactor and crashed 30yrs ago?
Technically you are correct because reactors are no longer used, they use a thing called an RTG, it's a type of 'atomic battery' powered by plutonium. Cosmos 954 carried a true reactor powered by plutonium. Here is the wiki link you were looking for.:)
The other reply is correct. It's not that everyone just assumed it's origin it's that everyone was uncertain about the origin. There was a hell of a lot of evidence collected for the CDC, WHO and others. Science is designed like that, nobody is ever 100% certain about anything.
Some religious and political groups (where many claim/demand proof) use this systematic uncertainty to justify their particular perversions of common decency when science presents them with inconvienient evidence. The search for the origin of aids was a good example.
Nobody is immune because nobody can keep up with everything. The comments on slashdot demonstrate that every day. Over the last 7-8yrs there has been a magnificent debate on slashdot over global warming. What once was marked troll is now insightfull, if nothing else I think most of the regulars (including me) know more about the science behind it than they did a few years ago.
"...it's a good reminder how science is about data, validation and facts not about authority. You're supposed to check your data, check your facts and try to avoid making implicit assumptions."
...and then in your twilight years some smart-arse with a spreadsheet takes all the fun out of polishing your nobel.
I think De Waal would agree that 'You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go inside the monkeyshpere'. part1, part2
The reactors (as used since the soviet crash 30yrs ago) are designed to be a 'chunk', the thing it powers is not. Since the 'chunk' is small, heavy, and moving at considerable speed, it will make a 'crater'. Where the chunk falls out of the debris cloud and forms said crater is anyone's guess.
OTOH: Atmospheric testing demonstrated how nasty plutonium condensate can be in the upper atmosphere and the 'indestructable' reactors have only been tested in the blenderrr..., I mean lab.
The reactors sent into orbit are supposedly built to withstand re-entry and a crash landing. Firing explosives at a reator in LEO and potentially spreading fairy dust everywhere is probably worse than letting it form a crater in the ground where contamination can be contained.
Regardless of the 'real reason', shooting down the hydrazine is a GoodThing(TM).
Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion on the sybolisim and technically the Queen could have broken tradition and refused to follow the constitutional recipie for breaking the deadlock.
Your first link actually supports what I said - The republic referendum was basically the peoples judgement about what happened in 1974 Aussies used the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' option. In other words they didn't see 1974 as a problem and saw no need for a president to 'fix the symbolisim'.
As for the second link (the supposed problem). What happened in 1974 clearly demonstrated that 'the people' are in charge not the Queen. Read your own links. Did Kerr run to the Queen or did he rubber stamp the opposition's petition for a general election based on the constitutional rules set up to handle a double dissolution trigger?
As for 1974 "happening again", why wouldn't I want a snap election when parliment is deadlocked to the point of supply being shut down for 6 months? What's the alternative to deadlock triggered rules enshrined in the constitution? Why would I change those rules if I think what happened in 1974 was a good solution to a difficult problem? Why on earth would I want a presidential election to appoint a glorified clerk? Why would I want a president who is not a glorified clerk?
I liked Whitlam, and I still do. His 'time for change' ads are my first recollection of an Australian politician other than Holt's drowning. Odd how some still call Whitlam a commie and yet many of his 'radical changes' now recieve bipartisan support. However having said that I also witnessed him (royaly?) screw-up by failing to play fair and call a timely election.
The reason he consequently lost that election was his self absorbed 'we was robbed' campaign, it made him look like a sore loser who had run out of ideas. Fraser's campaign simplified the whole thing to - 'we are asking the people to decide what we cannot'.
I wasn't trying to change your 'point', look back and you will find I was disparaging your use of the word 'proof' in a scientific context. However, since you asked...
Do we need this research: One reason why people scientifically investigate common-sense assumptions is that occasionaly those assumptions are wrong (sub-atomic physics is a better example). Nobody has a clue if they 'need' a particular piece of research until it is done, nor can the researcher predict how others will use it in the future (a good example from the world of maths is Maxwell's equations that were more or less ignored for 80yrs).
Are men attracted to breasts: Do native men who's tribe does not use clothes spend all day staring at breasts, do they turn away when they see grandma's nipples dragging in the dirt? - All good questions that probably require further research.;)
I hope you have your tongue firmly planted in you cheek.
The Queen as "head of state" is simply a rubber stamp and has been since 1901, unlike a republic the modern westminster system does not have a single person with the political power to veto laws and budgets on a personal whim. Sure, our constitution may read differently to what I have stated but then most aussies realise it's just a bit of paper that can be changed.
What matters is could a any monarch with meglomaniac tendencies gain enough political support to break with the convention of "constitutional impartiality"? - Since parliment can unilaterally sack the GG and find another ribbon cutter, my guess is that such a monarch would be laughed into oblivion both here and in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that I can agree with. :)
Or is the GUT just a regular function that emerges from a few sub-evaluators that are part of The Evaluator. Our brain is an evaluator and we each have our own "function" and when they agree on something they modify The Function that is said to emerge from The Chaos of The Universe.
Taking it one step further a cell is an evaluator that was constructed by a function that emerges from the cell's construction.
The inexplicable power of mathematics to predict the behaviour of the Universe is telling us something about what we call 'mind'. Finding that 'something' would be as revolutionary as Copernicus, Darwin or Eienstien all of whom moved man away from the center of creation.
"Murray Gel Man insisted his theoretical quarks didn't really exist"
Einstein also called his own theory a 'mathematical curiosity'.
"To those don't understand physics: please stay off physics-related discussions"
Discussion eliviates the symptoms of ignorance. If you have nothing to learn yourself, why are you here?
Your pencil doesn't move, everything else does. /itsallrelative
Hah - Years ago a boss of mine wrote a journal article about pen based computing the revolved around an O/S called penpoint. The article metioned MS's contribution that was marketed as 'Windows for pen'. The typo was a missing space that resulted in the phrase...
"Windows for penis..."
Yep, that's why the punishment for speeding often varies with the degree of mania. Example...
1-5km over the limit - nobody cares. 5+km over, a speed camera will get upset - $50 fine, 1 demerit point. 15+km over, a cop gets upset - $150 fine, 2 demerit points. 30+km over, a judge gets upset - $500 fine, licence torn up.
Define: giga
I read your link and countered with another that you failed to comprehend/read. The link clearly support what I was saying, and yes, bumping the reactor into a higher orbit is another option but how does that help if you can't communicate with it?
Here are a couple of quotes from my link...
"The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry,..."
"...plutonium dioxide which survived reentry into the Earth's atmosphere intact, as it was designed to do"
"Thank you for taking me seriously."
:)
Ditto.
Ummm I started the post with...'The reactors (as used since the soviet crash 30yrs ago)...'. Cosmos 954 was soviet, used a reactor and crashed 30yrs ago?
:)
Technically you are correct because reactors are no longer used, they use a thing called an RTG, it's a type of 'atomic battery' powered by plutonium. Cosmos 954 carried a true reactor powered by plutonium. Here is the wiki link you were looking for.
"which encyclopedia"
The fact that there is more than one encyclopedia in your question should give you a clue.
The other reply is correct. It's not that everyone just assumed it's origin it's that everyone was uncertain about the origin. There was a hell of a lot of evidence collected for the CDC, WHO and others. Science is designed like that, nobody is ever 100% certain about anything.
Some religious and political groups (where many claim/demand proof) use this systematic uncertainty to justify their particular perversions of common decency when science presents them with inconvienient evidence. The search for the origin of aids was a good example.
Nobody is immune because nobody can keep up with everything. The comments on slashdot demonstrate that every day. Over the last 7-8yrs there has been a magnificent debate on slashdot over global warming. What once was marked troll is now insightfull, if nothing else I think most of the regulars (including me) know more about the science behind it than they did a few years ago.
"...it's a good reminder how science is about data, validation and facts not about authority. You're supposed to check your data, check your facts and try to avoid making implicit assumptions."
...and then in your twilight years some smart-arse with a spreadsheet takes all the fun out of polishing your nobel.
People who depend on a single source are unreliable.
I think De Waal would agree that 'You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go inside the monkeyshpere'. part1, part2
Well Duh! Bill Gates. ;)
The reactors (as used since the soviet crash 30yrs ago) are designed to be a 'chunk', the thing it powers is not. Since the 'chunk' is small, heavy, and moving at considerable speed, it will make a 'crater'. Where the chunk falls out of the debris cloud and forms said crater is anyone's guess.
OTOH: Atmospheric testing demonstrated how nasty plutonium condensate can be in the upper atmosphere and the 'indestructable' reactors have only been tested in the blenderrr..., I mean lab.
This 'Joe Average' says he can be both.
The reactors sent into orbit are supposedly built to withstand re-entry and a crash landing. Firing explosives at a reator in LEO and potentially spreading fairy dust everywhere is probably worse than letting it form a crater in the ground where contamination can be contained.
Regardless of the 'real reason', shooting down the hydrazine is a GoodThing(TM).
Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion on the sybolisim and technically the Queen could have broken tradition and refused to follow the constitutional recipie for breaking the deadlock.
Yeah I know, 1975!
Your first link actually supports what I said - The republic referendum was basically the peoples judgement about what happened in 1974 Aussies used the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' option. In other words they didn't see 1974 as a problem and saw no need for a president to 'fix the symbolisim'.
As for the second link (the supposed problem). What happened in 1974 clearly demonstrated that 'the people' are in charge not the Queen. Read your own links. Did Kerr run to the Queen or did he rubber stamp the opposition's petition for a general election based on the constitutional rules set up to handle a double dissolution trigger?
As for 1974 "happening again", why wouldn't I want a snap election when parliment is deadlocked to the point of supply being shut down for 6 months? What's the alternative to deadlock triggered rules enshrined in the constitution? Why would I change those rules if I think what happened in 1974 was a good solution to a difficult problem? Why on earth would I want a presidential election to appoint a glorified clerk? Why would I want a president who is not a glorified clerk?
I liked Whitlam, and I still do. His 'time for change' ads are my first recollection of an Australian politician other than Holt's drowning. Odd how some still call Whitlam a commie and yet many of his 'radical changes' now recieve bipartisan support. However having said that I also witnessed him (royaly?) screw-up by failing to play fair and call a timely election.
The reason he consequently lost that election was his self absorbed 'we was robbed' campaign, it made him look like a sore loser who had run out of ideas. Fraser's campaign simplified the whole thing to - 'we are asking the people to decide what we cannot'.
I wasn't trying to change your 'point', look back and you will find I was disparaging your use of the word 'proof' in a scientific context. However, since you asked...
;)
Do we need this research: One reason why people scientifically investigate common-sense assumptions is that occasionaly those assumptions are wrong (sub-atomic physics is a better example). Nobody has a clue if they 'need' a particular piece of research until it is done, nor can the researcher predict how others will use it in the future (a good example from the world of maths is Maxwell's equations that were more or less ignored for 80yrs).
Are men attracted to breasts: Do native men who's tribe does not use clothes spend all day staring at breasts, do they turn away when they see grandma's nipples dragging in the dirt? - All good questions that probably require further research.
I hope you have your tongue firmly planted in you cheek.
The Queen as "head of state" is simply a rubber stamp and has been since 1901, unlike a republic the modern westminster system does not have a single person with the political power to veto laws and budgets on a personal whim. Sure, our constitution may read differently to what I have stated but then most aussies realise it's just a bit of paper that can be changed.
What matters is could a any monarch with meglomaniac tendencies gain enough political support to break with the convention of "constitutional impartiality"? - Since parliment can unilaterally sack the GG and find another ribbon cutter, my guess is that such a monarch would be laughed into oblivion both here and in the UK.