You know, I was agreeing with you until you started going after the environmentalists like that. The fact that some environmentalists (possibly even most) are sentimentalists and non-objective activists, doesn't mean that all environmentalists are so, or that environmental issues are unimportant. I really hate how some right-wing extremists (radicals?) say that anyone who is an environmentalist is a sissy, grass-smoking hippie and extremist. Not true. I would also add that probably most right-wingers or anti-environmentalists are equally sentimental and unobjective activists for their cause. I cannot agree with you that killing fish by polution is a bad thing only because it harms people. It would seem that you would say that torturing (you know, there are countless ways of prolonging pain with only a pair of pliers and a blow torch...) an utterly useless creature, is a morally neutral act. It cannot simply be that such an act perverts the torturer (or witnesses to the act) because this arguments precludes the idea that such an act is wrong to begin with.
>Actually, bacteria do in fact leave fossil >records. I don't know much (actually, anything) >regarding purported non-carbon "life," but >regular ol' bacteria can leave fossils, believe >it or not.
Interesting. I hadn't known that.
Regarding non-carbon life, I am not clear on the scientific reception of Cairns-Smith's book, though his hypothesis has been fairly hotly debated in the decade since its publication. It is not my area of expertise; I picked it up because the book was mentioned in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
>Very true. If there was life in this 'ocean', then >it's very likely fossils are in sedimentary rocks >in that region. If there are no fossils? Absence of >evidence is not evidence of absence, but it'll be a >really curious coincidence.
I'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars instead.
Dictionaries very often list plurals. Also the person was pointing out not the difference in plurals but the misplacement of the 'i' (haigographies vs. hagiographies).
Hi. I'm considering going to get a Masters in Computer Science. But should I? Everyone here seems so negative about the future. What can I expect to get for such a degree?
Right now we are simply acting on reflex. Things are changing and we are simply jumping to stop it. There has not been a real coherent discussion to my knowledge over whether or not perhaps a warmer earth is a good thing in the long run, it has just been an argument between industry and environmentalist, with industry automatically the side that controlling the climate is expensive, and environmentalist fighting to keep the climate from ever changing. No one is really considering the overall costs and benefits.
You make some good points. However, I had the understanding that global warming could cause an ice-age via a negative feed back process...in any case, I think you're right, except for one thing...the planet's environment is a system, and systems can go out of control...I do not know, but I can imagine that runaway processes could eventually make this planet unlivable (for us)...and I don't want that. well just my 2groszne
From the headliner: I still haven't seen this film, so I'll refrain from passing judgment, but I'm ever so happy the matrix-within-a-matrix theories were unfounded.
I disagree. The matrix within a matrix theory was well founded, but it proved wrong. These are not the same thing. If I told you I have a ripe strawberry in my hand, you would have the well founded belief that it is red, because ripe strawberries are red. But if it were blue, it doesn't mean that your belief was unfounded, at least until you saw the strwbrry.
ON NPD's website, it says: "Methodology Note: NPD MusicWatch Digital information is collected continuously from the PCs of 40,000 volunteer online panelists, balanced to represent the online population of PC users. NPD's MusicLab survey was fielded in September of 2003 to a representative sample of 5,000 respondents aged 13 and older." I would focus on "balanced", meaning representative, which could not be achieved without knowing the demographics of the users (such as age, etc), which I think implies that they were in fact volunteers.
On the other hand, if I was to volunteer for such a study and had illegal music on it, I might delete my files too, just because I'm paranoid. ( : So maybe the study just means that the volunteers didn't trust NPD with the data.
there's plenty of medical procedures that fall into that category alreaady. Come to think of it, do half the people on the planet now get any medical care?
well i agree with you, but I think that this is different. When people start seeing 80 year old people looking like their 20, people won't be so passive. This is an offer of (near) immortality, a fountain of youth, not a heart operation.
Although I have heard and once thought that if we develop medications to radically extend our life spans it would be primarily the rich who recieve such treatments. Naturally, since it would probably be expensive.
HOWEVER, I don't think it would work that way. I believe that after about 5-20 years of it being only for the rich, there would be such a movement to make the operation and freely available to all, that governments would do so for fear of revolution.
I don't think that the short-lived poor would tolerate the long-lived rich for very long. Mortals don't dig the immortals who deny mortals immortality.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said "motor" vehicle. Anyway, e.g. in CA, according to the handbook: "Bicycle riders (cyclists) on public streets have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers. Cyclists are part of the normal traffic flow and are entitled to share the road with other drivers."
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm# bike
as for riding on freeways...i used to live in Humboldt County in Norther CA, and the freeway was the only road between different towns, and so bicyclists used it regularly...but that, I think, is something of a unique situation.
Some lights have pressure sensors, but they only can tell if cars are currently waiting. and (somebody else later in the thread writes about metal detectin sensors).
Well, what always pissed me off about these traffic sensors is that they don't pick up bicycles, and so you are stuck at a red-light until you decide to either break the law or walk your bike across the cross-walk. I get really tired of people forgetting that bicycles are motor vehicles too.
Of you, the guy you replied to, and the six moderators that modded you both up, *none* of you apparently bothered to even read the writeup, much less the articles. Your link was, in fact, cited by the writeup. Near the bottom. Where is says "Note that NASA didn't go crazy developing a pen for space." Oi. Slashdot has reached a new low.
1. I, but apparently not you, read and posted this just after the headline was put up, and at that time, you fat assed egotistical little terd, the amendmant to the headline was not yet posted, and therefore my posting was not redundant, but relevant. Did I forget to mention that you are a pompous busy-body who has nothing better to do than to criticize other people over silly things? Your post was not worth the electricity and server space it consumed.
2. If Slashdot is so low, then go away. It might help.
I was thinking about data mining spyware...I get tired of deleting them. You know, instead of deleting data miners, there should be a program that simply overwrites the data so they get crap data back.
Actually quantum mechanics is exactly what I have in mind. Why do you say it is silly? That is the theory that scientists believe in nowadays.
I understood you originally to mean quantum mechanics. And no, I do not think quantum mechanics is silly. I understand probability distributions, but having probability distribution does not necessarily imply physical indeterminism. What I asked was, what does it truly mean to be indeterminate?
I could be wrong, but as I understand it indeterminancy in quantum mechanics is not about fundamental indeterminancy, but to be about limits of observation of subatomic particles. I am not well read on physics though.
in any case, I'm still not sure what it truly means to be not deterministic.
Slashdot Mirror
PRINTSCREEN should do the trick.
You know, I was agreeing with you until you started going after the environmentalists like that. The fact that some environmentalists (possibly even most) are sentimentalists and non-objective activists, doesn't mean that all environmentalists are so, or that environmental issues are unimportant. I really hate how some right-wing extremists (radicals?) say that anyone who is an environmentalist is a sissy, grass-smoking hippie and extremist. Not true. I would also add that probably most right-wingers or anti-environmentalists are equally sentimental and unobjective activists for their cause. I cannot agree with you that killing fish by polution is a bad thing only because it harms people. It would seem that you would say that torturing (you know, there are countless ways of prolonging pain with only a pair of pliers and a blow torch...) an utterly useless creature, is a morally neutral act. It cannot simply be that such an act perverts the torturer (or witnesses to the act) because this arguments precludes the idea that such an act is wrong to begin with.
Interesting. I hadn't known that.
Regarding non-carbon life, I am not clear on the scientific reception of Cairns-Smith's book, though his hypothesis has been fairly hotly debated in the decade since its publication. It is not my area of expertise; I picked it up because the book was mentioned in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
I'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars instead.
Dictionaries very often list plurals. Also the person was pointing out not the difference in plurals but the misplacement of the 'i' (haigographies vs. hagiographies).
That's a dumb fuck of a comment if I ever heard one, even from you Anonymous Coward.
Yes. Giant space gnome monkeys.
Hi. I'm considering going to get a Masters in Computer Science. But should I? Everyone here seems so negative about the future. What can I expect to get for such a degree?
You make some good points. However, I had the understanding that global warming could cause an ice-age via a negative feed back process...in any case, I think you're right, except for one thing...the planet's environment is a system, and systems can go out of control...I do not know, but I can imagine that runaway processes could eventually make this planet unlivable (for us)...and I don't want that. well just my 2groszne
I disagree. The matrix within a matrix theory was well founded, but it proved wrong. These are not the same thing. If I told you I have a ripe strawberry in my hand, you would have the well founded belief that it is red, because ripe strawberries are red. But if it were blue, it doesn't mean that your belief was unfounded, at least until you saw the strwbrry.
On the other hand, if I was to volunteer for such a study and had illegal music on it, I might delete my files too, just because I'm paranoid. ( : So maybe the study just means that the volunteers didn't trust NPD with the data.
...in the headliner.
Well, I'll tell you what will really be cool. I'll be able to buy on of those three gig processors for the price of chinese takeout.
I'm a practical man.
there's plenty of medical procedures that fall into that category alreaady. Come to think of it, do half the people on the planet now get any medical care?
well i agree with you, but I think that this is different. When people start seeing 80 year old people looking like their 20, people won't be so passive. This is an offer of (near) immortality, a fountain of youth, not a heart operation.
Read 'em. good books. I also really like the author's book, "Orange County"
someone ought to calculate the increase in fuel efficiency we'd gain in the U.S. if we weren't a nation of over-weight Big Mac eaters.
98 tons of plant material for c.a. 25 miles? Damn! Have you seen a pound of carrots pushing any vehicle a foot?
HOWEVER, I don't think it would work that way. I believe that after about 5-20 years of it being only for the rich, there would be such a movement to make the operation and freely available to all, that governments would do so for fear of revolution.
I don't think that the short-lived poor would tolerate the long-lived rich for very long. Mortals don't dig the immortals who deny mortals immortality.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm# bike
as for riding on freeways...i used to live in Humboldt County in Norther CA, and the freeway was the only road between different towns, and so bicyclists used it regularly...but that, I think, is something of a unique situation.
Well, what always pissed me off about these traffic sensors is that they don't pick up bicycles, and so you are stuck at a red-light until you decide to either break the law or walk your bike across the cross-walk. I get really tired of people forgetting that bicycles are motor vehicles too.
1. I, but apparently not you, read and posted this just after the headline was put up, and at that time, you fat assed egotistical little terd, the amendmant to the headline was not yet posted, and therefore my posting was not redundant, but relevant. Did I forget to mention that you are a pompous busy-body who has nothing better to do than to criticize other people over silly things? Your post was not worth the electricity and server space it consumed.
2. If Slashdot is so low, then go away. It might help.
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp /
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp /
or am I misunderstanding how data miners work?
sorry dude
I understood you originally to mean quantum mechanics. And no, I do not think quantum mechanics is silly. I understand probability distributions, but having probability distribution does not necessarily imply physical indeterminism. What I asked was, what does it truly mean to be indeterminate?
I could be wrong, but as I understand it indeterminancy in quantum mechanics is not about fundamental indeterminancy, but to be about limits of observation of subatomic particles. I am not well read on physics though.
in any case, I'm still not sure what it truly means to be not deterministic.