Pure flamebait. One politician raising the issue does not equal "all your politicians care about", and regardless, it's a valid question more pointed at our stupid foreign policies and their unexpected consequences.
And if people don't want to personally like "me" because of shit my stupid politicians (none of whom I've voted for, at last count) do, then fine. They're jackasses and I don't much like them either.
My comments about proof have nothing to do with science, and I didn't claim they did in the original post -- simply the rationality of believing something at all.
My comment wasn't meant to be a criticism of your statement, but more a criticism of those who would believe that things that aren't proven shouldn't be taught in science classes. That sort of thinking reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Proof has a definite meaning in mathematics, in jurisprudence, and maybe in other fields I'm not as aware of, but science doesn't. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said that "science is a discipline where theories and models are gradually replaced by ones that are less wrong."
Not everything in the world revolves around science. Math, logic, and reasoning help too.
Too true. That is one of science's limitations. Though I'm a big believer in scientific method, it also carries around an implicit faith or belief, and I try to be honest enough to acknowledge it: The universe is entirely governed by, if not outright deterministic, reproducible and predictable behavior. I'm pretty sure that's mostly true, but I'm not certain it's wholly true. Regardless, it's more an article of faith than one of proof or theory.
We've seen the resulting universe from what may have been a big bang, or a sudden creation, or a complete non-event, but we have no proof of any of them.
The moment you break out a word like "proof", you are already on the express bus out of Scienceville. Science is about coming up with theories that match observations, and can make predictions about future observations. The reason why scientists generally regard the Big Bang Theory as a good theory is because it fit observations made at the time and is confirmed by more observations made since that the theory predicted. When observations are made that don't fit the theory, the theory gets elaborated on (in the case of relativity refining Newton's classical mechanics) or outright rejected (luminiferous ether, phlogistons). A theory can be disproven, but can never really be proven.
Any reasonably honest scientist will cheerfully acknowledge that the current understanding of cosmology, evolution, or any other science doesn't represent the whole truth, or even a truth, but are models to explain what we see in nature. If science had all the answers, we'd have no need for further science research!
You've got it backwards. Make it work, then make it efficient. How the hell can you make an efficient and correct algorithm if you don't know how to make a correct algorithm?
It's the old software engineering saw on optimization: "To amateurs: Don't do it. To experts: Don't do it yet."
(Normal flight time using a minimal Hohmann Transfer is ~1.5 years.)
I think you forgot to divide by two. The duration of the whole Hohmann Earth/Mars transfer orbit is about this long, but you only use half of it to get there.
The whole point of outsourcing information and jobs like this to the private sector is to get the job done better and more efficiently.
That's the ostensible reason, the one they use to sell it to those who distrust government spending like libertarians, fiscal conservatives and some old-school Republicans.
The real reason is usually to privatize the profit centers, while continuing to keep the cost centers public, so the old boy network can continue to get slopped at the public trough.
It's an interesting idea, but we'd probably detect the resulting IR emissions from them as the energy collected, used and transformed would have to radiate out sooner or later. Unless you want to hypothesize some sort of perfect energy storage mechanism for them too. But now your solution isn't so simple.
A hypergenius that could not only exceed Knuth (Knuth, for Bob's sake!), but do it without resting on the established highest technology in the field (i.e. TeX and packages built around it)
I don't know about that. I think a more ordinary genius could do it, simply because they have the wisdom of Knuth plus others to build from, even if they reject the technical base of LaTeX, but incorporate the ideas and theories behind it.
Still, it would be quite an achievement, and I still agree with you that a full-on replacement is unlikely in the foreseeable future.
A troll is an attempt to trick readers in to thinking that one is taking a taboo position or a position which runs against a generally accepted notion when, in fact, one is simply trying to egg newbies on and goad them into an irrational and impulsive riposte.
Actually, it was a troll. The troll had nothing to do with the racist crap (I agree, not a troll, just spastic keyboarding from a troglodyte), but in the definition of troll... which you bit on. Although, given the usual lame ass GNAA-style sh(l)ock posts, I figure this more subtle troll was completely accidental. A real troll is a thing of beauty and is a fine art. Most of what gets labeled "Troll" around here is the internet equivalent of a penis crudely spray-painted on the back of an abandoned shopping center.
For the mods: I'm posting without karma bonus, but "Offtopic" is warranted for this post if you really feel the need.
Anyone who says "because it would cost money" is a moron.
There's more to it than free code licenses. It probably doesn't apply to the newer generation of iPods, but the older gen iPods COULDN'T have Ogg Vorbis because they were not quite powerful enough to decode Vorbis in real time. I recall the people who were trying to reprogram iPods with a free software alternatives running into this exact problem. I don't remember, but I think someone finally got it to work in one of the Linux on iPod projects, but it was considerably more than a couple hours of an engineer's time (Bumming discrete cosine transform code is not for the faint of heart!). It's not even noticeable on computer hardware made in the last decade, but in small embedded systems it was a more critical thing. If having Vorbis support even cost them a few cents extra for a slightly better processor, times how many millions of units, it's going to be subject to a cost benefit ratio.
My guess is the actual demand for Vorbis in iTunes and iPods is in the hundredths of 1 percent. I think there is an Ogg Vorbis Quicktime plugin, so you can listen to them in iTunes, but they're not going to go out of their way to support it. I'm a Vorbis fan... I've got thousands of them on my HE server, and no Vorbis support is why I never got an iPod, but it's pretty apparent to me that I'm a tiny minority.
Just to be clear: the fringe/pseudo science is usually called "remote viewing". Remote sensing is the science of recording and interpreting electromagnetic interactions with matter at a distance, usually with aircraft and satellites as the observation platform. There is no sharp line between what is remote sensing and what is not. You could certainly claim that using a hand held camera can be remote sensing.
Unless they had the interstellar equivalent of a flat tire, why would they stop here? Certainly not to learn anything from us - about us, perhaps; but any race capable of overcoming the obstacle that is interstellar space would hardly be interested in our coal/oil/uranium fired technologies.
I don't know... ask an archaeologist if they would like to have a time machine to observe ancient civilizations directly. I would imagine that in a galaxy even fairly dense with sentient life, finding one right on the dawn of a industrial/atomic/information age would be a pretty rare thing and would be something hypothetical alien xenoarchaeologists would really want to observe.
Being in space or not does NOT lend any extra credibility to any claim. If you think he's credible on this, then fine, but "ZOMG he's been to the MOON!!11" doesn't make him an expert on extraterrestrial life and government cover-ups. Even if it did, it's still only a statement. Without any evidence to back it up, it has no real value.
Mitchell has been into fringe (or pseudo, take your pick) science for a long time now, and believes in things like remote healing, ESP, as well. Should we start to believe in that as well?
I get paid by NASA too, and frankly, I'd be more worried someone there would fake evidence that there IS life in space in order to get a bigger slice of the declining NASA science budget (which is getting cut 20% this year if GWB gets his way).
Re:"LV-426 Shake-and-bake" Terraforming...
on
Floating Cities On Venus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Don't forget the Sulfuric acid, H2SO4. If you have a source of lead, and some solar collectors, you can collect the acid, stick two blocks of lead into it, and apply electric power. You get hydrogen gas at one end, oxygen at the other. Keep oxygen for breathing, and burn hydrogen and oxygen together to get water.
There's probably a hundred engineering difficulties I haven't thought of, but it's chemically feasible, anyway.
Yeah, that is certainly true... but passwords are relatively easily changed. He specifically said "details of their bank account". I am really hard pressed to imagine a scenario where I or anyone else would inadvertently C&P my bank account and routing number or a CC number into a source file, and then save it, and then commit it.
Slashdot Mirror
Pure flamebait. One politician raising the issue does not equal "all your politicians care about", and regardless, it's a valid question more pointed at our stupid foreign policies and their unexpected consequences.
And if people don't want to personally like "me" because of shit my stupid politicians (none of whom I've voted for, at last count) do, then fine. They're jackasses and I don't much like them either.
I hear what you're saying, but you don't suppose decades of the US and the Soviet Union sitting on top of Europe had anything to do with that?
My comments about proof have nothing to do with science, and I didn't claim they did in the original post -- simply the rationality of believing something at all.
My comment wasn't meant to be a criticism of your statement, but more a criticism of those who would believe that things that aren't proven shouldn't be taught in science classes. That sort of thinking reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Proof has a definite meaning in mathematics, in jurisprudence, and maybe in other fields I'm not as aware of, but science doesn't. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said that "science is a discipline where theories and models are gradually replaced by ones that are less wrong."
Not everything in the world revolves around science. Math, logic, and reasoning help too.
Too true. That is one of science's limitations. Though I'm a big believer in scientific method, it also carries around an implicit faith or belief, and I try to be honest enough to acknowledge it: The universe is entirely governed by, if not outright deterministic, reproducible and predictable behavior. I'm pretty sure that's mostly true, but I'm not certain it's wholly true. Regardless, it's more an article of faith than one of proof or theory.
We've seen the resulting universe from what may have been a big bang, or a sudden creation, or a complete non-event, but we have no proof of any of them.
The moment you break out a word like "proof", you are already on the express bus out of Scienceville. Science is about coming up with theories that match observations, and can make predictions about future observations. The reason why scientists generally regard the Big Bang Theory as a good theory is because it fit observations made at the time and is confirmed by more observations made since that the theory predicted. When observations are made that don't fit the theory, the theory gets elaborated on (in the case of relativity refining Newton's classical mechanics) or outright rejected (luminiferous ether, phlogistons). A theory can be disproven, but can never really be proven.
Any reasonably honest scientist will cheerfully acknowledge that the current understanding of cosmology, evolution, or any other science doesn't represent the whole truth, or even a truth, but are models to explain what we see in nature. If science had all the answers, we'd have no need for further science research!
You've got it backwards. Make it work, then make it efficient. How the hell can you make an efficient and correct algorithm if you don't know how to make a correct algorithm?
It's the old software engineering saw on optimization: "To amateurs: Don't do it. To experts: Don't do it yet."
I play the sequel: Commuting in Phoenix: Escape from L.A..
(Normal flight time using a minimal Hohmann Transfer is ~1.5 years.)
I think you forgot to divide by two. The duration of the whole Hohmann Earth/Mars transfer orbit is about this long, but you only use half of it to get there.
Just for God's sake don't open the box now. I don't want to find out I'm dead.
Was I the only network programming geek to see "htons" in there and find it impossible to let go of it in order to decrypt the actual message?
The whole point of outsourcing information and jobs like this to the private sector is to get the job done better and more efficiently.
That's the ostensible reason, the one they use to sell it to those who distrust government spending like libertarians, fiscal conservatives and some old-school Republicans.
The real reason is usually to privatize the profit centers, while continuing to keep the cost centers public, so the old boy network can continue to get slopped at the public trough.
I'm so glad that there's always someone to explain all these liberal egg-head jokes around here to me.
Good luck getting my history.
It's an interesting idea, but we'd probably detect the resulting IR emissions from them as the energy collected, used and transformed would have to radiate out sooner or later. Unless you want to hypothesize some sort of perfect energy storage mechanism for them too. But now your solution isn't so simple.
A hypergenius that could not only exceed Knuth (Knuth, for Bob's sake!), but do it without resting on the established highest technology in the field (i.e. TeX and packages built around it)
I don't know about that. I think a more ordinary genius could do it, simply because they have the wisdom of Knuth plus others to build from, even if they reject the technical base of LaTeX, but incorporate the ideas and theories behind it.
Still, it would be quite an achievement, and I still agree with you that a full-on replacement is unlikely in the foreseeable future.
A troll is an attempt to trick readers in to thinking that one is taking a taboo position or a position which runs against a generally accepted notion when, in fact, one is simply trying to egg newbies on and goad them into an irrational and impulsive riposte.
Actually, it was a troll. The troll had nothing to do with the racist crap (I agree, not a troll, just spastic keyboarding from a troglodyte), but in the definition of troll... which you bit on. Although, given the usual lame ass GNAA-style sh(l)ock posts, I figure this more subtle troll was completely accidental. A real troll is a thing of beauty and is a fine art. Most of what gets labeled "Troll" around here is the internet equivalent of a penis crudely spray-painted on the back of an abandoned shopping center.
For the mods: I'm posting without karma bonus, but "Offtopic" is warranted for this post if you really feel the need.
Anyone who says "because it would cost money" is a moron.
There's more to it than free code licenses. It probably doesn't apply to the newer generation of iPods, but the older gen iPods COULDN'T have Ogg Vorbis because they were not quite powerful enough to decode Vorbis in real time. I recall the people who were trying to reprogram iPods with a free software alternatives running into this exact problem. I don't remember, but I think someone finally got it to work in one of the Linux on iPod projects, but it was considerably more than a couple hours of an engineer's time (Bumming discrete cosine transform code is not for the faint of heart!). It's not even noticeable on computer hardware made in the last decade, but in small embedded systems it was a more critical thing. If having Vorbis support even cost them a few cents extra for a slightly better processor, times how many millions of units, it's going to be subject to a cost benefit ratio.
My guess is the actual demand for Vorbis in iTunes and iPods is in the hundredths of 1 percent. I think there is an Ogg Vorbis Quicktime plugin, so you can listen to them in iTunes, but they're not going to go out of their way to support it. I'm a Vorbis fan... I've got thousands of them on my HE server, and no Vorbis support is why I never got an iPod, but it's pretty apparent to me that I'm a tiny minority.
your implication that "hearts and minds" (whose?) should be relevant is just silly.
Dick Cheney, is that you?
Metric: PASS
Significant Figures: FAIL
;-)
Just to be clear: the fringe/pseudo science is usually called "remote viewing". Remote sensing is the science of recording and interpreting electromagnetic interactions with matter at a distance, usually with aircraft and satellites as the observation platform. There is no sharp line between what is remote sensing and what is not. You could certainly claim that using a hand held camera can be remote sensing.
If I have to keep putting on more clothes, I'll eventually be washingtons of laundry.
Unless they had the interstellar equivalent of a flat tire, why would they stop here? Certainly not to learn anything from us - about us, perhaps; but any race capable of overcoming the obstacle that is interstellar space would hardly be interested in our coal/oil/uranium fired technologies.
I don't know... ask an archaeologist if they would like to have a time machine to observe ancient civilizations directly. I would imagine that in a galaxy even fairly dense with sentient life, finding one right on the dawn of a industrial/atomic/information age would be a pretty rare thing and would be something hypothetical alien xenoarchaeologists would really want to observe.
I got 10 bucks on the alien overlords.
Being in space or not does NOT lend any extra credibility to any claim. If you think he's credible on this, then fine, but "ZOMG he's been to the MOON!!11" doesn't make him an expert on extraterrestrial life and government cover-ups. Even if it did, it's still only a statement. Without any evidence to back it up, it has no real value.
Mitchell has been into fringe (or pseudo, take your pick) science for a long time now, and believes in things like remote healing, ESP, as well. Should we start to believe in that as well?
I get paid by NASA too, and frankly, I'd be more worried someone there would fake evidence that there IS life in space in order to get a bigger slice of the declining NASA science budget (which is getting cut 20% this year if GWB gets his way).
Don't forget the Sulfuric acid, H2SO4. If you have a source of lead, and some solar collectors, you can collect the acid, stick two blocks of lead into it, and apply electric power. You get hydrogen gas at one end, oxygen at the other. Keep oxygen for breathing, and burn hydrogen and oxygen together to get water.
There's probably a hundred engineering difficulties I haven't thought of, but it's chemically feasible, anyway.
Yeah, that is certainly true... but passwords are relatively easily changed. He specifically said "details of their bank account". I am really hard pressed to imagine a scenario where I or anyone else would inadvertently C&P my bank account and routing number or a CC number into a source file, and then save it, and then commit it.