"Mary saw a puppy in the window and she wanted it. What did Mary want?"
An ambiguous subject in a phrase is a classic problem in AI, however natural language algorithms (such as the one found in Watson) have been able to resolve ambiguous statements like your "Mary" example and the trophy/bag example in TFS, for over a decade now. The trick to resolving such ambiguities is the same one used by humans; context, probability, and lots of prior examples.
I'm 55, I can tolerate a concert next door on a Saturday night provided it finishes at a reasonable hour (say midnight), what I don't want is 500 drunken teenagers rioting in the street. Drunken brawls tend to spill into the street when large numbers of gatecrashers turn up to a party a kid has advertised on FB. I'm all in favour of cops watching FB for potential riots but pretending to be a dateless college girl is just silly, it would be far more effective to simply warn the party organiser publicly that they are being monitored and remind them of the local noise pollution laws.
If you want a huge party with music all night and no cops, rent a rural property for the weekend.
I'm afraid calling it a "brane" makes me think more the former than the latter.
"Brane" is simply an abbreviation of "membrane" that indicates it has more than three dimensions.
Or is this just one of those wacky theories physicists come up with and then try to find evidence for?
All scientific theories are "wacky" until evidence is found, maths is not evidence but it is very often a good clue. The problem with things like cosmology and quantum mechanics is that it is unexplainable in any language other than math. The "average person" doesn't have the required fluency in math to even read it, let alone examine the consequences that flow from it. I have a math degree but this math is a very different dialect that I don't understand very well. Irony is that QM is the most accurately measured and tested theory we have, it's as close to certainty as any theory gets.
Somehow I doubt the shielding is perfect. Assuming it's perfect is an awfully big assumption.
I doubt that anyone is claiming that the shielding is perfect, it seems a more reasonable assumption but could be refuted with a quote, if you had one.
Don't know if they have looked but it stands to reason that if the theory is correct there should be "empty" places in our universe where neutrons spontaneously appear in great numbers, these locations would correspond to neutron stars in the adjacent universe (assuming the other universe has stars). OTOH, I don't know of any reason why we should assume a fixed 1:1 relationship between locations in two adjacent universes.
Since the Earth is whizzing around the edges of the galaxy it is never in the same location twice, should we expect to see unexplained changes in the background level that correlate to sources in the other universe(s)? "Blips on the radar" so to speak?
Electrons and positrons are spontaneously created in pairs that almost instantaneously annihilate each other. The current explanation is that they "borrow energy from the future" which is payed back when they collide, it breaks the normal notion of causality but nothing at the quantum level is "normal". I'm assuming from FTS that the same thing happens with neutrons and other subatomic particles.
For quite some time the alternate theory is that they (and the force of gravity) leak in and out of our universe. The maths is likely to be just as convincing in both theories. I have no idea how this experiment could differentiate between the two, nor do I understand how they can calibrate the equipment in this particular experiment. In these circumstances I rely on the reaction of the scientific community in general, if you never hear of it again, it didn't work.
That I could understand your post demonstrates that English is a very forgiving and flexible natural language. Computer languages are mathematical, maths is in fact our most precise language for describing the universe. Knowing something about computer languages may give you some insight into maths but it won't help a Japanese speaker to understand the contents of your post.
It's none of my business if you want to self medicate with whatever drug you fancy, that's "freedom". An unqualified but charismatic quack taking advantage of desperately ill people for personal gain is not "freedom", it's fraud.
By definition alternative medicine has either been proved not to work, or not proved to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine" - Tim Minchin.
It was because Churchill did not want the credit for winning the war to go to a handful of boffins rather than to the armed forces.
Not really, and the credit goes to both the fighters and the thinkers. Aside from being the key to sinking the entire U-boat fleet in the N. Atlantic by informing the fighters where the subs would surface, this is the same technology that was used to arrange a more famous naval ambush known as the battle of midway. Churchill and his allies didn't want anyone to know about the techniques because it was a huge military and economic advantage, even the fact they existed was kept a secret, so much so that very few people knew anything about it until the 1970's. Fact is they didn't mothball the technology after the war, they formed the five eyes intelligence alliance around it and held on to the advantage for as long as they could.
I think what you're trying to say is that they had served their original purpose. If they were worthless at the time, the military would not have gone out of their way to ensure none of it survived the war. Note that after the war the "five eyes" kept a lid on their wartime code breaking technology until the 1970's, long after Turing's death they were using it to listen in on friends and foes who had no idea such sophisticated code cracking techniques were even possible.
It might well have been the case that his notes were genuinely believed to have more value as insulation.
Unlikely, Turing's work was so useful to the war effort that Churchill basically gave him a blank cheque. It's doubtful the military brass knew anything about the insulation, if they did they would have probably burnt down the entire building just to be sure all the papers were destroyed. Sounds much more like the act of a bunch of engineers and boffins, ie: "To hell with idiotic military secrecy, I'm not putting out the top secret recycling this week, there are no Nazi's in the ceiling and I'm freezing my arse off here".
I guess you could say the same about horse meat in pork or beef...
We are talking about truth in labelling, not the wisdom of consuming the ingredients on the label. Horse meat is NOT beef, pork, or mutton, to label it as such is a clear case of fraud. A potato that glows in the dark is still a potato, nobody is trying to pass off GMO potatoes as passionfruit for personal gain, to do so would also be a clear case of fraud.
GMO is a breeding technique, not an ingredient. Just like cage eggs and tuna that dolphins died for, it's fine to brag about these things on the packet but there is no reason to make the statements mandatory. If you want to stop cage eggs then campaign to phase out the practice of battery hens under animal cruelty laws, it's pointless trying to force the egg company to campaign against itself via mandatory labelling.
Trivia: During WW1 you could go to Harrods in London and buy a gift pack of cocaine and opiates to send to your loved one on the front. Cocaine was widely advertised as a "pick me up" potion, which is misleading but certainly not a false claim
The term free market has never been void of regulation
That's because the term "free market" does not mean "free from regulation" unless you work for Rupert Murdoch. The market isn't a place or a thing, it's a set of rules governing trade, not the least of which is property law. A "free market" is just one type of market, it's unique feature is that everyone is "free to participate". Throwing the trading rules out literally means throwing the word "market" out of the term "free market".
That effect is said to have played a critical role in human evolution. However we did not climb a static hill, rather the hill was constantly moving around and we evolved to fill ALL the places it travelled through. The rift valley where modern humans first appeared turns out to be particularly sensitive to climate change (particularly the changes induced by the Earth's 'wobble'). During our 2 million year evolution the climate in the rift valley went from ice to wetland to desert scrub and everything in between several times. Turns out that when we left Africa the extreme variety of climates (hills) we had evolved in made us well suited for occupying virtually all of the land based environments found on the planet.
Anthropomorphising evolution doesn't bother me, it's very descriptive and very clear to people who already understand evolution. What does bother me is when creationists use it in a strawman argument such as the one you described in your post. It's not just evolution, people use this kind of language as a kind of shorthand for discussing concepts they already understand, for example, every software house I worked for in the last couple of decades had people constantly talking about what the code "thinks", "wants", etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I wrote it, and the self-censorship point is nonsense.
And you think the GP is "incredibly naive"?
Yeah that was my point, I was part of the "working poor" for 15yrs, I don't recall anyone throwing free stuff at me, quite the opposite.
Troll? - Who gave the tea-baggers "free" mod points?
"Mary saw a puppy in the window and she wanted it. What did Mary want?"
An ambiguous subject in a phrase is a classic problem in AI, however natural language algorithms (such as the one found in Watson) have been able to resolve ambiguous statements like your "Mary" example and the trophy/bag example in TFS, for over a decade now. The trick to resolving such ambiguities is the same one used by humans; context, probability, and lots of prior examples.
government should not be taking money from [the middle class] and giving it to Y
Take another look a post WW2 history, there would be no middle class if not for the government taking money from X and creating it.
why do rich and poor people always get things for "free"???
Strange how the people who make these kind of claims are never willing to live in poverty to get "free stuff"?
I'm 55, I can tolerate a concert next door on a Saturday night provided it finishes at a reasonable hour (say midnight), what I don't want is 500 drunken teenagers rioting in the street. Drunken brawls tend to spill into the street when large numbers of gatecrashers turn up to a party a kid has advertised on FB. I'm all in favour of cops watching FB for potential riots but pretending to be a dateless college girl is just silly, it would be far more effective to simply warn the party organiser publicly that they are being monitored and remind them of the local noise pollution laws.
If you want a huge party with music all night and no cops, rent a rural property for the weekend.
Turn Syria into glass, and the next guy in line will think twice before fucking with the civilized world.
Irony is, in order to turn Syria into glass you would have to stop referring to yourself as civilised.
One could argue they are getting paid in eyeballs.
I'm afraid calling it a "brane" makes me think more the former than the latter.
"Brane" is simply an abbreviation of "membrane" that indicates it has more than three dimensions.
Or is this just one of those wacky theories physicists come up with and then try to find evidence for?
All scientific theories are "wacky" until evidence is found, maths is not evidence but it is very often a good clue. The problem with things like cosmology and quantum mechanics is that it is unexplainable in any language other than math. The "average person" doesn't have the required fluency in math to even read it, let alone examine the consequences that flow from it. I have a math degree but this math is a very different dialect that I don't understand very well. Irony is that QM is the most accurately measured and tested theory we have, it's as close to certainty as any theory gets.
Somehow I doubt the shielding is perfect. Assuming it's perfect is an awfully big assumption. I doubt that anyone is claiming that the shielding is perfect, it seems a more reasonable assumption but could be refuted with a quote, if you had one.
Don't know if they have looked but it stands to reason that if the theory is correct there should be "empty" places in our universe where neutrons spontaneously appear in great numbers, these locations would correspond to neutron stars in the adjacent universe (assuming the other universe has stars). OTOH, I don't know of any reason why we should assume a fixed 1:1 relationship between locations in two adjacent universes.
Since the Earth is whizzing around the edges of the galaxy it is never in the same location twice, should we expect to see unexplained changes in the background level that correlate to sources in the other universe(s)? "Blips on the radar" so to speak?
Electrons and positrons are spontaneously created in pairs that almost instantaneously annihilate each other. The current explanation is that they "borrow energy from the future" which is payed back when they collide, it breaks the normal notion of causality but nothing at the quantum level is "normal". I'm assuming from FTS that the same thing happens with neutrons and other subatomic particles.
For quite some time the alternate theory is that they (and the force of gravity) leak in and out of our universe. The maths is likely to be just as convincing in both theories. I have no idea how this experiment could differentiate between the two, nor do I understand how they can calibrate the equipment in this particular experiment. In these circumstances I rely on the reaction of the scientific community in general, if you never hear of it again, it didn't work.
The endpoint of a tertiary education is to have learnt how to educate yourself.
That I could understand your post demonstrates that English is a very forgiving and flexible natural language. Computer languages are mathematical, maths is in fact our most precise language for describing the universe. Knowing something about computer languages may give you some insight into maths but it won't help a Japanese speaker to understand the contents of your post.
It's none of my business if you want to self medicate with whatever drug you fancy, that's "freedom". An unqualified but charismatic quack taking advantage of desperately ill people for personal gain is not "freedom", it's fraud.
By definition alternative medicine has either been proved not to work, or not proved to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine" - Tim Minchin.
There are less than 500 Siberian Tigers in the wild and they are notoriously shy around humans.
It was because Churchill did not want the credit for winning the war to go to a handful of boffins rather than to the armed forces.
Not really, and the credit goes to both the fighters and the thinkers. Aside from being the key to sinking the entire U-boat fleet in the N. Atlantic by informing the fighters where the subs would surface, this is the same technology that was used to arrange a more famous naval ambush known as the battle of midway. Churchill and his allies didn't want anyone to know about the techniques because it was a huge military and economic advantage, even the fact they existed was kept a secret, so much so that very few people knew anything about it until the 1970's. Fact is they didn't mothball the technology after the war, they formed the five eyes intelligence alliance around it and held on to the advantage for as long as they could.
so they were genuinely worthless then
I think what you're trying to say is that they had served their original purpose. If they were worthless at the time, the military would not have gone out of their way to ensure none of it survived the war. Note that after the war the "five eyes" kept a lid on their wartime code breaking technology until the 1970's, long after Turing's death they were using it to listen in on friends and foes who had no idea such sophisticated code cracking techniques were even possible.
It might well have been the case that his notes were genuinely believed to have more value as insulation.
Unlikely, Turing's work was so useful to the war effort that Churchill basically gave him a blank cheque. It's doubtful the military brass knew anything about the insulation, if they did they would have probably burnt down the entire building just to be sure all the papers were destroyed. Sounds much more like the act of a bunch of engineers and boffins, ie: "To hell with idiotic military secrecy, I'm not putting out the top secret recycling this week, there are no Nazi's in the ceiling and I'm freezing my arse off here".
I guess you could say the same about horse meat in pork or beef...
We are talking about truth in labelling, not the wisdom of consuming the ingredients on the label. Horse meat is NOT beef, pork, or mutton, to label it as such is a clear case of fraud. A potato that glows in the dark is still a potato, nobody is trying to pass off GMO potatoes as passionfruit for personal gain, to do so would also be a clear case of fraud.
GMO is a breeding technique, not an ingredient. Just like cage eggs and tuna that dolphins died for, it's fine to brag about these things on the packet but there is no reason to make the statements mandatory. If you want to stop cage eggs then campaign to phase out the practice of battery hens under animal cruelty laws, it's pointless trying to force the egg company to campaign against itself via mandatory labelling.
Trivia: During WW1 you could go to Harrods in London and buy a gift pack of cocaine and opiates to send to your loved one on the front. Cocaine was widely advertised as a "pick me up" potion, which is misleading but certainly not a false claim
The term free market has never been void of regulation
That's because the term "free market" does not mean "free from regulation" unless you work for Rupert Murdoch. The market isn't a place or a thing, it's a set of rules governing trade, not the least of which is property law. A "free market" is just one type of market, it's unique feature is that everyone is "free to participate". Throwing the trading rules out literally means throwing the word "market" out of the term "free market".
That effect is said to have played a critical role in human evolution. However we did not climb a static hill, rather the hill was constantly moving around and we evolved to fill ALL the places it travelled through. The rift valley where modern humans first appeared turns out to be particularly sensitive to climate change (particularly the changes induced by the Earth's 'wobble'). During our 2 million year evolution the climate in the rift valley went from ice to wetland to desert scrub and everything in between several times. Turns out that when we left Africa the extreme variety of climates (hills) we had evolved in made us well suited for occupying virtually all of the land based environments found on the planet.
Anthropomorphising evolution doesn't bother me, it's very descriptive and very clear to people who already understand evolution. What does bother me is when creationists use it in a strawman argument such as the one you described in your post. It's not just evolution, people use this kind of language as a kind of shorthand for discussing concepts they already understand, for example, every software house I worked for in the last couple of decades had people constantly talking about what the code "thinks", "wants", etc.