We know the speed of light, but what is the speed of dark?
Yes. How do we know that lightbulbs are not sucking darkness out of the room, instead of emenating light-rays? ( : Why isn't light the real shadows of the world- we'll call them lightows.
An Olympics that prohibits free speech? Of course the IOC is a non-governing body- but as far as I'm concerned, it should be wide open to all media.
For that matter, we should have a television broadcast devoted to political candidates in the US- so that any candidate from any party with enough signatures can get an equal share of air time.
A study among the PULLIULL tribe in West Los Angeles demonstrates that its members cannot do Calculus because they never learned how. In other news...
The linguistic determination hypothesis is only trivially true. The problem is that researchers are rarely clear on what is exactly determined. Linguistic determination seems largely to be used to try to support the idea that we are born tabla rasa, an idea that is patently false. What is true is that we are all born with a rudimentary or naive mathematics...meaning that we comprehend the basic number system, and perform rudimentary addition and substraction intuitively. But there is a reason that we go to school to learn the multiplication table, division, decimals, calculus, etc. Learning augments the basic ability we are born with.
There are two versions of the linguistic determination hypothesis: the strong and the weak. The strong hypothesis supposes that language absolutely determines what we are capable of thinking, and that thus, individuals of different languages think fundamentally in different ways. This, I think, must be ultimately rejected. The weak hypothesis says simply that a language tends to direct our thought to certain things, but is not an a priori reason to think that someone is incapable of thinking such things. I would not expect even Galileo to have spoken intelligibly about quantum theory- but if he were to have had the chance to learn, he certainly could have.
Yes, but here you are just agreeing with the OP. The assertion was that ignorant opinions are as good as learned ones precisely because the field is so difficult that erudition gives little advantage; the fact that you have spent your life studying the field does not guarantee that you have made any progress. Life is not fair, and no law says that you won't waste your life chasing a dream.
Please note that I do not agree with the OP: I don't believe ignorance is ever an advantage. But you missed the rather obvious point - not a promising sign from someone working in a difficult field.
What a sorry attitude, and load of BS. Just because they haven't solved everything doesn't mean that they haven't learned anything. And just because things are not easily explained to others doesn't mean that they don't understand- how many here truly understand some of the more obscure mathematics? Should they, because it is difficult to learn, suppose that its all BS? BS!
A study among the PULLIULL tribe in West Los Angeles cannot do Calculus because they never learned. In other news...
The linguistic determination hypothesis is only trivially true. The problem is that researchers are rarely clear on what is exactly determined. Linguistic determination seems largely to be used to try to support the idea that we are born tabla rasa, an idea that is patently false. What is true is that we are all born with a rudimentary or naive mathematics...meaning that we comprehend the basic number system, and perform rudimentary addition and substraction intuitively. But there is a reason that we go to school to learn the multiplication table, division, decimals, calculus, etc. Learning augments the basic ability we are born with.
There are two versions of the linguistic determination hypothesis: the strong and the weak. The strong hypothesis supposes that language absolutely determines what we are capable of thinking, and that thus, individuals of different languages think fundamentally in different ways. This, I think, must be ultimately rejected. The weak hypothesis says simply that a language tends to direct our thought to certain things, but is not an a priori reason to think that someone is incapable of thinking such things. I would not expect even Galileo to have spoken intelligibly about quantum theory- but if he were to have had the chance to learn, he certainly could have.
But I really see research into moons as being a waste of money that could have been better spent feeding and clothing the poorest in the world.
A worthy sentiment, but incorrect. If, for example, we diverted all funds for NASA and gave that money to the poor of America, their incomes would only be raised by a few hundreds of dollars (i'm giving a guess). Rather than take money away from worthy research, it would be better if all of the super-rich gave all of their surpluss wealth away, and the same with the defense budget, which is overbloated.
Doom 3isn't an apt comparison, but you'd be offended if Christian religious chanting were used as background music in a fighting game? Are you saying Doom 3 doesn't have disembowled crucified people on upside-down crosses (it does)?
Actually, I'm not saying any of these things. I'd find it offensive if an actual religious chant were being used (not just a made up one) in a context that was inappropriate. Regarding Doom: I've never played it, and no virtually nothing about it. shrug. But in any case, I'm not arguing for absolutes- I don't believe that a general level description, such as a these moral statements are, can adequately state what is most moral in any particular situation- even Christians cannot hold that "Thou Shall Not Kill", for there are numerous situations in which killing seems justified. This is not some moral relativism either. One can believe in there being an absolute right and wrong for every situation, without calling for an 'always'.
1. I didn't say that using religious music in such games is always bad- however, the use of such music should be respectful to those to whom it is important. Of course, this needs to be balanced with the importance of self-expression.
2. A clear differentiation should be made between what religious groups have done and the sentiments of the prayers of that religion. For example, the fact that some Muslims committed the atrocious acts of 9/11 does not mean that it is appropriate to play Islamic holy music to scenes of violence, especially in such trite a context as a video game manufactured for profit and intended to entertain.
3. I wasn't referring to the DOOM game in particular.
4. Finally: art doesn't care what offends you. In fact, it's supposed to shock and offend, or else it's not doing its job.That is a naive view of art. You can shock and offend without doing art. Something is art by calling it so. Good art is an entirely other game, but still need not shock or offend to qualify as good art. Few would classify rennaisance religous art as having been shocking or offensive at the time of its creation, but the art is and was highly esteemed. In fact, I think that it is unfair to artists that they must strive to shock and offend. Much shock art, in any case, in my opinion is more financially motivated than anything. Because artists are producers competing in a capitalist market, they are induced to strive for recognition and innovation. Nothing can increase an artists profile (and thus her/his financial prospects) as shocking people with offensive material. Nonetheless, I do hold that some very good art does shock and offend- but it is not good simply because it does so, but because it manages to communicate something important, not just, for example, an adolescent reaction to Christian fundamentalism. For example, one can communicate one's disapproval of Christianity without doing it in a way that disrespects the beliefs and persons of Christians. In fact, one's message may be more effective by doing so- because when you attack people (and such it is), they stop listening.
5. I agree with you, the Bible, and especially the Old Testament is full of violence and myopia- thus I am not Christian, in the Classic Sense at least. I can hold that the principal of redemption may obtain without holding that the Bible is the holy truth of God's word.
I agree with you. However, half of the disputes with Microsoft were over nationalist sensitivities (not cultural sensitivity)- not recognizing a Kurdistan is important to the Turkish government, and Turkey has a number of policies to the effect, even going so far (I believe) to ban the Kurdish language. Pakistan and India fighting over that land- if India were not a bigger market than Pakistan then Microsoft would have bent to the Pakistani side of the dispute-
None of us like companies to become political agents in the world- but just doing business in certain parts of the world makes political statements- even if self-serving ones.
Now, imagine the outrage here if a fundamentalist Christian complained about the fact that DOOM 3 portrayed Hell in an incorrect light and it was pulled from the shelves?
I'm not sure this is an apt comparison. I think that the offense came from the fact that the prayer music was part of a profane and violent fighting game. I would be offended too (and I'm not Christian) if Christian religious chanting were used as background music for such a game. Its simply disrespectful to the sentiments involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Well an analytical closed-form solution might not be possible, but iteration will surely help.
Which is of course why smoke signals are such a good way to tell jokes.
A lot more than theories suck in the dark.
ahh that's how i heard of it- though by a fourth party.
Yes. How do we know that lightbulbs are not sucking darkness out of the room, instead of emenating light-rays? ( : Why isn't light the real shadows of the world- we'll call them lightows.
I for one welcome our new Bord overlords.
Prions, Darwin's Friend. No they aren't. Darwin doesn't have any FRIENDS!
For that matter, we should have a television broadcast devoted to political candidates in the US- so that any candidate from any party with enough signatures can get an equal share of air time.
Is the IOC a private organization?
The linguistic determination hypothesis is only trivially true. The problem is that researchers are rarely clear on what is exactly determined. Linguistic determination seems largely to be used to try to support the idea that we are born tabla rasa, an idea that is patently false. What is true is that we are all born with a rudimentary or naive mathematics...meaning that we comprehend the basic number system, and perform rudimentary addition and substraction intuitively. But there is a reason that we go to school to learn the multiplication table, division, decimals, calculus, etc. Learning augments the basic ability we are born with.
There are two versions of the linguistic determination hypothesis: the strong and the weak. The strong hypothesis supposes that language absolutely determines what we are capable of thinking, and that thus, individuals of different languages think fundamentally in different ways. This, I think, must be ultimately rejected. The weak hypothesis says simply that a language tends to direct our thought to certain things, but is not an a priori reason to think that someone is incapable of thinking such things. I would not expect even Galileo to have spoken intelligibly about quantum theory- but if he were to have had the chance to learn, he certainly could have.
What you've never seen any Homo sapiens deceive?
I would certainly mod the parent up. An effective reply.
What a sorry attitude, and load of BS. Just because they haven't solved everything doesn't mean that they haven't learned anything. And just because things are not easily explained to others doesn't mean that they don't understand- how many here truly understand some of the more obscure mathematics? Should they, because it is difficult to learn, suppose that its all BS? BS!
The parent was modded funny, but I also think that its true, though irony is not so esoteric a word.
The linguistic determination hypothesis is only trivially true. The problem is that researchers are rarely clear on what is exactly determined. Linguistic determination seems largely to be used to try to support the idea that we are born tabla rasa, an idea that is patently false. What is true is that we are all born with a rudimentary or naive mathematics...meaning that we comprehend the basic number system, and perform rudimentary addition and substraction intuitively. But there is a reason that we go to school to learn the multiplication table, division, decimals, calculus, etc. Learning augments the basic ability we are born with.
There are two versions of the linguistic determination hypothesis: the strong and the weak. The strong hypothesis supposes that language absolutely determines what we are capable of thinking, and that thus, individuals of different languages think fundamentally in different ways. This, I think, must be ultimately rejected. The weak hypothesis says simply that a language tends to direct our thought to certain things, but is not an a priori reason to think that someone is incapable of thinking such things. I would not expect even Galileo to have spoken intelligibly about quantum theory- but if he were to have had the chance to learn, he certainly could have.
Besides, we all know that google can do no wrong.
.
.
Ok, I'm joking. My questions: did Google do something dishonest, or illegal? I don't know enough about IPO's to know.
Hey whatdya know? I happen to be soldering in space RIGHT NOW.
If only we could peer to peer money. Now that would be a new economic system!
A worthy sentiment, but incorrect. If, for example, we diverted all funds for NASA and gave that money to the poor of America, their incomes would only be raised by a few hundreds of dollars (i'm giving a guess). Rather than take money away from worthy research, it would be better if all of the super-rich gave all of their surpluss wealth away, and the same with the defense budget, which is overbloated.
Actually, I'm not saying any of these things. I'd find it offensive if an actual religious chant were being used (not just a made up one) in a context that was inappropriate. Regarding Doom: I've never played it, and no virtually nothing about it. shrug. But in any case, I'm not arguing for absolutes- I don't believe that a general level description, such as a these moral statements are, can adequately state what is most moral in any particular situation- even Christians cannot hold that "Thou Shall Not Kill", for there are numerous situations in which killing seems justified. This is not some moral relativism either. One can believe in there being an absolute right and wrong for every situation, without calling for an 'always'.
That's a wonderful idea. Go to!
1. I didn't say that using religious music in such games is always bad- however, the use of such music should be respectful to those to whom it is important. Of course, this needs to be balanced with the importance of self-expression.
2. A clear differentiation should be made between what religious groups have done and the sentiments of the prayers of that religion. For example, the fact that some Muslims committed the atrocious acts of 9/11 does not mean that it is appropriate to play Islamic holy music to scenes of violence, especially in such trite a context as a video game manufactured for profit and intended to entertain.
3. I wasn't referring to the DOOM game in particular.
4. Finally: art doesn't care what offends you. In fact, it's supposed to shock and offend, or else it's not doing its job.That is a naive view of art. You can shock and offend without doing art. Something is art by calling it so. Good art is an entirely other game, but still need not shock or offend to qualify as good art. Few would classify rennaisance religous art as having been shocking or offensive at the time of its creation, but the art is and was highly esteemed. In fact, I think that it is unfair to artists that they must strive to shock and offend. Much shock art, in any case, in my opinion is more financially motivated than anything. Because artists are producers competing in a capitalist market, they are induced to strive for recognition and innovation. Nothing can increase an artists profile (and thus her/his financial prospects) as shocking people with offensive material. Nonetheless, I do hold that some very good art does shock and offend- but it is not good simply because it does so, but because it manages to communicate something important, not just, for example, an adolescent reaction to Christian fundamentalism. For example, one can communicate one's disapproval of Christianity without doing it in a way that disrespects the beliefs and persons of Christians. In fact, one's message may be more effective by doing so- because when you attack people (and such it is), they stop listening.
5. I agree with you, the Bible, and especially the Old Testament is full of violence and myopia- thus I am not Christian, in the Classic Sense at least. I can hold that the principal of redemption may obtain without holding that the Bible is the holy truth of God's word.
I'm joking of course.
None of us like companies to become political agents in the world- but just doing business in certain parts of the world makes political statements- even if self-serving ones.
I'm not sure this is an apt comparison. I think that the offense came from the fact that the prayer music was part of a profane and violent fighting game. I would be offended too (and I'm not Christian) if Christian religious chanting were used as background music for such a game. Its simply disrespectful to the sentiments involved.