If it is a prediction of quantum electro dynamics and has not yet been tested and that test replicated you are incorrectly labeling quantum electro dynamics as a theory.
"It would be a huge shock if a properly conducted experiment would fail to produce the expected results."
Right. Whereas if it were a theory it would be impossible.
"theory hasn't actually been proven yet and remains a theory"
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Something that is probably true but remains unproven is a hypothesis. It doesn't become a theory until it is proven.
The way the public uses the term is not the same as the way science uses it. The public uses theory to refer to speculation. That would be hypothesis at best. All the predictions that can be derived from your "guess" have to be tested, and then those tests successfully replicated by a third party. THEN your guess becomes a theory. The narrative of a theory may or may not be correct but the mathematical model that narrative creates is fact and can be used to predict the behavior of reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it incorrectly called theory if this prediction has not yet been tested? That would be a very old and widely accepted hypothesis.
You are working from the assumption that you have some water in the first place. But what about the tea? What about the cup? What if it were a steak or some fuel?
Dudes 3D printer is essentially the star trek replicator. If you can't see how a replicator is useful you are a hopeless cause. Also, there is nothing to say the waste from inefficiency in the process has to be heat.
In an imaginary world where we can replicate anything by converting energy into matter an atom at a time we can convert matter into energy an atom at a time. It stops being scandalous to be wasteful of energy at that point. It's no longer a rare commodity.
Know what else you could do with it? Extremely high velocity space propulsion.
Because your way you have to start with water and end with water. If converting the matter to energy and then from energy to matter you could hypothetically start with say, trash in a landfill or silica sand or water and print your cup of earl grey or a kobe steak.
I didn't know we were talking about mom and pop shops. They don't have storage and network admins because they don't have significant storage and network architecture to admin. But even in the ultra tiny shops where the IT staff are outside consultants they should have restricted physical access to your server(s).
It's one thing to have someone in to work on the system you run your accounting on. It's quite another to not only put that system on the internet but give 24/7 physical access to a third party. Security aside, the person who would suggest putting your local windows based file, print, and SSO on the cloud is a moron. Those services aren't intended for anything but local access and choke pretty hard over wan links without wan accelerators that cost more than a mom and pop shops entire IT infrastructure. Even if you had the wan accelerators to work around the latency, LAN links are going to be dramatically faster and less expensive for said mom and pop shop.
You are still going to need your workstations. You are still going to need switching/routing for them. And in shops that size your servers just plug in to a port on the same stuff so you aren't going to cut back on network infrastructure going to the cloud. What you are going to do is more heavily saturate your already slow WAN link.
Which is fine given the lack of any presented argument against running your own generator (or server).
It is however a pretty good refutation of the summary claim that admin's are avoiding moving to the cloud because they are afraid of losing their jobs. The servers are still there whether at a cloud service or individual company and still need administrated. If anything cloud shops create more admin jobs. The company still has to admin their servers, they just don't rack and stack them.
Putting things "on the cloud" is nothing more or less than virtualizing servers in a datacenter. A company can do that for themselves. Using a cloud service does nothing more or less than outsource some of your rack and stack jobs and virtualization platform administration. Which probably isn't saving much since said services have to have that staff and pay them and recoup the cost plus a profit from what they charge you and it is definitely handing complete and total access to your systems and data to a third party.
Let's not go being haters. There is plenty to go around. Personally I'm happy to tap a little vanilla here, a little chocolate treat there, get all up in a nice set of marshmellows. I'll even mix it all up. I really just have one rule. If anyone is going to put nuts on my ice cream it's going to be me. But you are free to do what you feel with yours.
You can certainly believe in A god (or many) and not deny science but if you believe in God and believe in science you've deluded yourself on one front or the other. There is quite a bit in your holy book that contradicts science. For that matter, the two creation accounts in the first book directly contradict each other on many points and both contradict very well established science and are incompatible with the existence of fossils you can see with your own eyes.
Where theists get confused is they see this as science attacking their thing. Not at all. Their thing never enters into science, the scientific method begins with observing reality, speculating on causes for why that reality is how it is, then seeing if your guess as to how it works can successfully be used to predict behavior you haven't observed yet. Theism, Intelligent Design, etc can never be part of that framework because they get the order wrong and break a critical rule. They start with a speculated cause based on fancy and then observe reality instead of starting with reality and fantasizing causes based on it that can subsequently be determined are incorrect. That's the critical rule, the speculative part, the part you are just pulling out of your mind, it has to be possible to test it against the reality and fail if it is inconsistent. You can't prove there is no god and when you equate the rules of reality to a god's will it not only can't be dis-proven but becomes irrelevant from the point of science. It doesn't matter if conservation of energy and matter exists because it is reality or because that's how a god made it, it still works the same way and the math that follows is useful for exactly the same things.
" The photographer who didn't want to work for a gay wedding, the baker who didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding reception, the companies who don't want to pay for abortifacients; all examples of theists being made to break their own rules."
No, no they are not. They are cases of theists imposing their rules on others or punishing them for not following the theists rules. There is no religion I am aware of which forbids photographing or feeding gay people. There is also no religion which forbids providing healthcare. Following your own rules means deciding whether YOU are okay with yourself being gay, not your clients, not your children, not your hairdresser, you and you alone. The same with whether or not you are going to get an abortion or use contraception or take advantage of any other medical procedure.
Refusing services to others simply because their rules are different than yours and thus they are gay or opt for an abortion is imposing your rules on them. It's your place to support the idea that everyone gets to pick their own rules. It's not your place to provide or withdraw support based on which rules someone else follows. It's simply none of your business.
If nothing else, I do believe we've found common ground on the ice cream front. In fact, I think we could all stand to take a break from whatever we are doing and get some ice cream.
"So, all you secular scientist are implicitly supporting Nazism, since you agree with its foundational premises."
The Nazi party may have described itself in such a manner but it's foundational premises were not consistent with secular science.
"Whatever argument you use to explain why you are different than them, can also be used by any Christian to explain why they are different than radical fundamentalists."
On the contrary. Radical fundamentalists are generally the most consistent in holding to belief in Christian doctrine. The rest either are just Christian on paper (usually because they've been brainwashed to believe that there is some relation between being Christian and being good) or otherwise disagree with the actual doctrine and have come up with a series of alternative explanations or distillation of the "spirit" of doctrine on some of the more insane points.
"Even the Jihadists are really not likely ever to personally cause you harm."
The day before 9/11 you likely would have said the same to everyone personally harmed in 9/11 or through the loss of someone in 9/11.
"So apparently simply disagreeing with you is threatening to destroy your way of life?"
I think he is pointing out that those who disagree on these particular topics (which for the most part are factually established and not really legitimately open to debate) are as a group taking action to impose their views on others or tangibly impede education and/or progress in our society. In some cases even reverse it.
Except nobody is trying to make the theists break their own rules. Everyone else who would be happy if we all just crawl in our respective holes and follow our own personal rules.
It's called tethering. But it still doesn't matter unless they get rid of the caps. And phones don't actually deliver anything near the advertised 4G but not really speeds as it is.
For those of us with very large screens suddenly the quality of a source blu-ray becomes very important. Small sized rips look beautiful on say a 50" screen but they look horrible on a 120" screen.
I like to have both really, blu-ray without further compression and a smaller rip I can store on my NAS.
That's actually not a given. If you sync between multiple very accurate time sources you actually can get a result that has superior resolution to your typical radio link.
GPS will beat it though. BTW, those sound like some cool watches.
"Sure, I could configure my phone to do that but why carry a large fragile item all the time when I can just put a watch on?"
So that in addition to knowing what time it is you can get your calls, emails, facebook a quick checkin at the sports bar you and your friends often frequent, get real time updates for the scores on all the pro sports games along with replay clips, google bits of interest, menus for restaurants you are contemplating, finding reviews to figure out the restaurant you should be contemplating, directions to the place you are going, settle a debate with wikipedia, see what's playing at a theater when it occurs to go see a movie, play "the right song" in a romantic moment with your significant other, sync with your pedometer as you walk around town, track your food choices on myfitnesspal, quickly check what exercises and weights you are supposed to lift today at the gym and record the results, review and record the new beers/wines you tried this weekend, control the thermostat at home, set the patio zone to a playlist while having a bbq, etc.
And said "large" pocket sized item in it's protective drop safe shell with crystal screen protector probably costs the same or less than the watches you are contemplating for even the latest and greatest models.
" I own a smart phone, but I don't have a data plan for it. I don't keep it attached to me 24/7, nor do I want to."
Uh huh
"My tablet is far less hassle than my laptop, and when I travel I no longer bring my laptop most of the time. I can get into my company VPN with my tablet, I can pull out my tablet in a lot of places that a laptop would be a bloody nuisance, and I can go through airport security with my tablet without taking it out of the bag."
Okay, so to recap, you are replying to my statements that for MOBILE use the general order of hassle from least to greatest is going to be (smartwatch?), phone, tablet, laptop, desktop. And that this order is basically reversed for user interface hassle. The only thing you mentioned that is an actual "function" of the device is vpn connection, you can do that ANY of these devices from desktop to phone. The rest are "mobile device" or "mobility" features. Easier to carry, easier to pull out, etc. It's worth noting, all these things you say you do with your tablet you could do with a phone and it's even more portable. It fits right in your pocket!
" I wouldn't want to do all of my work on my tablet, but for checking on my email when I'm travelling, it's far far more convenient."
Right. Because while a tablet is more mobile, it is slower and has a comparatively poor interface vs a laptop. So you wouldn't want to all your work on your tablet. But for a limited subset of tasks and situations the enhanced mobility make it worth it.
Right, because divers, skiers, and cyclists are the rule and not the exception among the general population.
Of course, you can check the time on a smart phone one handed so you could certainly do it cycling. And with bluetooth you could do so hands free while skiing.
My point was, the vast majority of people in developed countries are using a cell phone with more accurate time than a wrist watch. Some people mentioned data plans but your phone syncs to the cell networks time and that is synced to highly accurate clocks so a data plan is not needed. And for the exceptions, cheap digital watches are more accurate than expensive mechanical ones.
I'm sure there is an exception that someone will point out like a single exception invalidate my point. But generally speaking, a digital watch is a superior solution to a mechanical one, smart or otherwise.
Sure. Cellular networks generally have their time synchronized to extremely accurate physical time sources. So indirectly, you are synched to them as well, whether you have a data plan or not.
You use what is handy for you and for you that is a watch. And you also illustrate my initial point. Although I admittedly generalized for effect, since I was replying to someone with a watch I feel it's pretty obvious I wasn't claiming that literally nobody uses one. Rather, my point was that watches are generally going out of day to day fashion as a time source for most of the wired population of the world. As I said, if you actually have need of a watch to tell time, a mechanical watch as indicated by the GP isn't the best option at all, far from it, a cheap Casio is far more accurate.
Synchronized to a device that is synchronized. Whether it be one or 5 steps away from the actual time source is not the point. They are all ultimately sync'd to that time source.
Ummm.... a $5 quartz clocked digital watch that keeps better time than the mechanical watch and has a battery that last 5yrs. Probably longer by now or at least it should be given advances in battery technology.
Someone actually using a watch to tell time, smart or otherwise, is new to me. Last I checked we all have smart phones that are constantly linked to the internet and synchronized with the most precise time sources physicists can come up with. These devices are on us at all times, can be used to take pictures, exchange communications in a dozen fairly unique ways, browse the web, etc.
There's a point where a smaller and smaller smart device just means less and less an ideal interface. While less portable a laptop is still less hassle for involved tasks than a smartphone. That's why tablets came after the smartphone, people realized this and tried to fill the gap but a tablet is less useful as a mobile device than a phone and more hassle than a laptop. While not really portable at all, a desktop is better, certainly faster, than any of those things for more involved work.
A watch... that has nothing to do with telling time and certainly nothing to do with computing. Those are decorative items. Some also have the novelty factor of seeing the cool mechanical bits through transparent windows. I thought about getting a pocket watch for that reason.
Exactly, if the data is proprietary it belongs to the entity that paid for it's collection, namely the public. If that entity were a private one there might be an advantage to hindering competition by keeping such data secret but it is in the public's interest to speed up every project, both public and private that might make use of it.
Otherwise the public might well be paying for the same research and collecting more or less the same data over and over again.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is a prediction of quantum electro dynamics and has not yet been tested and that test replicated you are incorrectly labeling quantum electro dynamics as a theory.
"It would be a huge shock if a properly conducted experiment would fail to produce the expected results."
Right. Whereas if it were a theory it would be impossible.
"theory hasn't actually been proven yet and remains a theory"
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Something that is probably true but remains unproven is a hypothesis. It doesn't become a theory until it is proven.
The way the public uses the term is not the same as the way science uses it. The public uses theory to refer to speculation. That would be hypothesis at best. All the predictions that can be derived from your "guess" have to be tested, and then those tests successfully replicated by a third party. THEN your guess becomes a theory. The narrative of a theory may or may not be correct but the mathematical model that narrative creates is fact and can be used to predict the behavior of reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it incorrectly called theory if this prediction has not yet been tested? That would be a very old and widely accepted hypothesis.
You are working from the assumption that you have some water in the first place. But what about the tea? What about the cup? What if it were a steak or some fuel?
Dudes 3D printer is essentially the star trek replicator. If you can't see how a replicator is useful you are a hopeless cause. Also, there is nothing to say the waste from inefficiency in the process has to be heat.
In an imaginary world where we can replicate anything by converting energy into matter an atom at a time we can convert matter into energy an atom at a time. It stops being scandalous to be wasteful of energy at that point. It's no longer a rare commodity.
Know what else you could do with it? Extremely high velocity space propulsion.
Because your way you have to start with water and end with water. If converting the matter to energy and then from energy to matter you could hypothetically start with say, trash in a landfill or silica sand or water and print your cup of earl grey or a kobe steak.
I didn't know we were talking about mom and pop shops. They don't have storage and network admins because they don't have significant storage and network architecture to admin. But even in the ultra tiny shops where the IT staff are outside consultants they should have restricted physical access to your server(s).
It's one thing to have someone in to work on the system you run your accounting on. It's quite another to not only put that system on the internet but give 24/7 physical access to a third party. Security aside, the person who would suggest putting your local windows based file, print, and SSO on the cloud is a moron. Those services aren't intended for anything but local access and choke pretty hard over wan links without wan accelerators that cost more than a mom and pop shops entire IT infrastructure. Even if you had the wan accelerators to work around the latency, LAN links are going to be dramatically faster and less expensive for said mom and pop shop.
You are still going to need your workstations. You are still going to need switching/routing for them. And in shops that size your servers just plug in to a port on the same stuff so you aren't going to cut back on network infrastructure going to the cloud. What you are going to do is more heavily saturate your already slow WAN link.
Which is fine given the lack of any presented argument against running your own generator (or server).
It is however a pretty good refutation of the summary claim that admin's are avoiding moving to the cloud because they are afraid of losing their jobs. The servers are still there whether at a cloud service or individual company and still need administrated. If anything cloud shops create more admin jobs. The company still has to admin their servers, they just don't rack and stack them.
Putting things "on the cloud" is nothing more or less than virtualizing servers in a datacenter. A company can do that for themselves. Using a cloud service does nothing more or less than outsource some of your rack and stack jobs and virtualization platform administration. Which probably isn't saving much since said services have to have that staff and pay them and recoup the cost plus a profit from what they charge you and it is definitely handing complete and total access to your systems and data to a third party.
Let's not go being haters. There is plenty to go around. Personally I'm happy to tap a little vanilla here, a little chocolate treat there, get all up in a nice set of marshmellows. I'll even mix it all up. I really just have one rule. If anyone is going to put nuts on my ice cream it's going to be me. But you are free to do what you feel with yours.
You can certainly believe in A god (or many) and not deny science but if you believe in God and believe in science you've deluded yourself on one front or the other. There is quite a bit in your holy book that contradicts science. For that matter, the two creation accounts in the first book directly contradict each other on many points and both contradict very well established science and are incompatible with the existence of fossils you can see with your own eyes.
Where theists get confused is they see this as science attacking their thing. Not at all. Their thing never enters into science, the scientific method begins with observing reality, speculating on causes for why that reality is how it is, then seeing if your guess as to how it works can successfully be used to predict behavior you haven't observed yet. Theism, Intelligent Design, etc can never be part of that framework because they get the order wrong and break a critical rule. They start with a speculated cause based on fancy and then observe reality instead of starting with reality and fantasizing causes based on it that can subsequently be determined are incorrect. That's the critical rule, the speculative part, the part you are just pulling out of your mind, it has to be possible to test it against the reality and fail if it is inconsistent. You can't prove there is no god and when you equate the rules of reality to a god's will it not only can't be dis-proven but becomes irrelevant from the point of science. It doesn't matter if conservation of energy and matter exists because it is reality or because that's how a god made it, it still works the same way and the math that follows is useful for exactly the same things.
" The photographer who didn't want to work for a gay wedding, the baker who didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding reception, the companies who don't want to pay for abortifacients; all examples of theists being made to break their own rules."
No, no they are not. They are cases of theists imposing their rules on others or punishing them for not following the theists rules. There is no religion I am aware of which forbids photographing or feeding gay people. There is also no religion which forbids providing healthcare. Following your own rules means deciding whether YOU are okay with yourself being gay, not your clients, not your children, not your hairdresser, you and you alone. The same with whether or not you are going to get an abortion or use contraception or take advantage of any other medical procedure.
Refusing services to others simply because their rules are different than yours and thus they are gay or opt for an abortion is imposing your rules on them. It's your place to support the idea that everyone gets to pick their own rules. It's not your place to provide or withdraw support based on which rules someone else follows. It's simply none of your business.
If nothing else, I do believe we've found common ground on the ice cream front. In fact, I think we could all stand to take a break from whatever we are doing and get some ice cream.
Anyone who disagrees, obviously needs to die.
"So, all you secular scientist are implicitly supporting Nazism, since you agree with its foundational premises."
The Nazi party may have described itself in such a manner but it's foundational premises were not consistent with secular science.
"Whatever argument you use to explain why you are different than them, can also be used by any Christian to explain why they are different than radical fundamentalists."
On the contrary. Radical fundamentalists are generally the most consistent in holding to belief in Christian doctrine. The rest either are just Christian on paper (usually because they've been brainwashed to believe that there is some relation between being Christian and being good) or otherwise disagree with the actual doctrine and have come up with a series of alternative explanations or distillation of the "spirit" of doctrine on some of the more insane points.
"Even the Jihadists are really not likely ever to personally cause you harm."
The day before 9/11 you likely would have said the same to everyone personally harmed in 9/11 or through the loss of someone in 9/11.
"So apparently simply disagreeing with you is threatening to destroy your way of life?"
I think he is pointing out that those who disagree on these particular topics (which for the most part are factually established and not really legitimately open to debate) are as a group taking action to impose their views on others or tangibly impede education and/or progress in our society. In some cases even reverse it.
Except nobody is trying to make the theists break their own rules. Everyone else who would be happy if we all just crawl in our respective holes and follow our own personal rules.
It's called tethering. But it still doesn't matter unless they get rid of the caps. And phones don't actually deliver anything near the advertised 4G but not really speeds as it is.
It is with the ridiculous capped data plans available in the US.
No. No you can't. Oh sure, your phone will light up with a 4G logo on it but there will still be a wait time when you load google in your browser.
For those of us with very large screens suddenly the quality of a source blu-ray becomes very important. Small sized rips look beautiful on say a 50" screen but they look horrible on a 120" screen.
I like to have both really, blu-ray without further compression and a smaller rip I can store on my NAS.
That's actually not a given. If you sync between multiple very accurate time sources you actually can get a result that has superior resolution to your typical radio link.
GPS will beat it though. BTW, those sound like some cool watches.
"Sure, I could configure my phone to do that but why carry a large fragile item all the time when I can just put a watch on?"
So that in addition to knowing what time it is you can get your calls, emails, facebook a quick checkin at the sports bar you and your friends often frequent, get real time updates for the scores on all the pro sports games along with replay clips, google bits of interest, menus for restaurants you are contemplating, finding reviews to figure out the restaurant you should be contemplating, directions to the place you are going, settle a debate with wikipedia, see what's playing at a theater when it occurs to go see a movie, play "the right song" in a romantic moment with your significant other, sync with your pedometer as you walk around town, track your food choices on myfitnesspal, quickly check what exercises and weights you are supposed to lift today at the gym and record the results, review and record the new beers/wines you tried this weekend, control the thermostat at home, set the patio zone to a playlist while having a bbq, etc.
And said "large" pocket sized item in it's protective drop safe shell with crystal screen protector probably costs the same or less than the watches you are contemplating for even the latest and greatest models.
"Then I assume you live in a cave."
Because of your sample size of one?
" I own a smart phone, but I don't have a data plan for it. I don't keep it attached to me 24/7, nor do I want to."
Uh huh
"My tablet is far less hassle than my laptop, and when I travel I no longer bring my laptop most of the time. I can get into my company VPN with my tablet, I can pull out my tablet in a lot of places that a laptop would be a bloody nuisance, and I can go through airport security with my tablet without taking it out of the bag."
Okay, so to recap, you are replying to my statements that for MOBILE use the general order of hassle from least to greatest is going to be (smartwatch?), phone, tablet, laptop, desktop. And that this order is basically reversed for user interface hassle. The only thing you mentioned that is an actual "function" of the device is vpn connection, you can do that ANY of these devices from desktop to phone. The rest are "mobile device" or "mobility" features. Easier to carry, easier to pull out, etc. It's worth noting, all these things you say you do with your tablet you could do with a phone and it's even more portable. It fits right in your pocket!
" I wouldn't want to do all of my work on my tablet, but for checking on my email when I'm travelling, it's far far more convenient."
Right. Because while a tablet is more mobile, it is slower and has a comparatively poor interface vs a laptop. So you wouldn't want to all your work on your tablet. But for a limited subset of tasks and situations the enhanced mobility make it worth it.
Right, because divers, skiers, and cyclists are the rule and not the exception among the general population.
Of course, you can check the time on a smart phone one handed so you could certainly do it cycling. And with bluetooth you could do so hands free while skiing.
My point was, the vast majority of people in developed countries are using a cell phone with more accurate time than a wrist watch. Some people mentioned data plans but your phone syncs to the cell networks time and that is synced to highly accurate clocks so a data plan is not needed. And for the exceptions, cheap digital watches are more accurate than expensive mechanical ones.
I'm sure there is an exception that someone will point out like a single exception invalidate my point. But generally speaking, a digital watch is a superior solution to a mechanical one, smart or otherwise.
Sure. Cellular networks generally have their time synchronized to extremely accurate physical time sources. So indirectly, you are synched to them as well, whether you have a data plan or not.
You use what is handy for you and for you that is a watch. And you also illustrate my initial point. Although I admittedly generalized for effect, since I was replying to someone with a watch I feel it's pretty obvious I wasn't claiming that literally nobody uses one. Rather, my point was that watches are generally going out of day to day fashion as a time source for most of the wired population of the world. As I said, if you actually have need of a watch to tell time, a mechanical watch as indicated by the GP isn't the best option at all, far from it, a cheap Casio is far more accurate.
Synchronized to a device that is synchronized. Whether it be one or 5 steps away from the actual time source is not the point. They are all ultimately sync'd to that time source.
Ummm.... a $5 quartz clocked digital watch that keeps better time than the mechanical watch and has a battery that last 5yrs. Probably longer by now or at least it should be given advances in battery technology.
Someone actually using a watch to tell time, smart or otherwise, is new to me. Last I checked we all have smart phones that are constantly linked to the internet and synchronized with the most precise time sources physicists can come up with. These devices are on us at all times, can be used to take pictures, exchange communications in a dozen fairly unique ways, browse the web, etc.
There's a point where a smaller and smaller smart device just means less and less an ideal interface. While less portable a laptop is still less hassle for involved tasks than a smartphone. That's why tablets came after the smartphone, people realized this and tried to fill the gap but a tablet is less useful as a mobile device than a phone and more hassle than a laptop. While not really portable at all, a desktop is better, certainly faster, than any of those things for more involved work.
A watch... that has nothing to do with telling time and certainly nothing to do with computing. Those are decorative items. Some also have the novelty factor of seeing the cool mechanical bits through transparent windows. I thought about getting a pocket watch for that reason.
Exactly, if the data is proprietary it belongs to the entity that paid for it's collection, namely the public. If that entity were a private one there might be an advantage to hindering competition by keeping such data secret but it is in the public's interest to speed up every project, both public and private that might make use of it.
Otherwise the public might well be paying for the same research and collecting more or less the same data over and over again.