I get tired of hearing that nuclear energy is an unsafe source of energy. It is simply wrong. Those people who would respond by saying, "But what about Chernobyl" need to understand that nuclear meltdowns happen for a few reasons: our nuclear reactors are too large. Small and medium sized reactors do not suffer this hazard. and I believe we no longer make new large reactors anymore for this very reason.
and the waste problems of fission power generation would be lessed, though not eliminated perhaps, by a combination of responsible management and recycling waste.
and in any case folks, there are natural fission reactors here on earth anyway.
and if i'm not mistaken, nuclear fission keeps the earth's core nice and hot
I know that drugs are present in human waste. Various Finno-Ugrian peoples used urine as a way to intoxicate whole groups of people with a single dose of the fly agaric mushroom, a hallucinogen. Apparently, one person consumed the mushrooms, kept the urine (mushrooms make you urinate) and gave the cup for the next to drink. The majority of the relevant chemicals are simply passed through the body.
Listen, the idea of re-using our own waste-matter might be unappealing, but appropriately applied it is probably a good idea. But it would have to be appropriately applied because fecal matter is a major parasitic vector. And I am also somewhat concerned about whether or not some of the chemicals we ingest medicinally and otherwise could pose a health hazard.
or it might be fun.
I'm afraid I have little tolerance for post-modern 'thought'. i hate to say this, though, really.
they have such fancy cool words that don't mean anything.
ok maybe i'm trolling, of is it flamebaiting?
i'm not sure what you mean by empirical logic. but I am personally critical with the post-modern critique in anthropology of rationality. they seem to assume that rationality means profit maximization and vulgar utilitarianism. but i think that people can rationally pursue irrational ends. utility is a function of cultural and personal values. i want to smoke. it gives me a utility. i value it. i pursue it in a rational manner by lighting up. but of course, if i value health, then maybe i shouldn't light up. the rationality of any given activity is determined partially by the questions frame of reference. perhaps then we should talk about actions as being made up of the physical and the intentional. wait! isn't this Hegel? bah i'm not up on my philosophy.
Interestingly enough, Seldon's own plan became hypocritical after the 2nd Foundationers took over "management" of history in Foundation and Empire. According to Seldon's published theories, there needed to be no management for history to conclude the formation of a 2nd Empire. After the Plan was re-established (the Mule and aftermath), the 2nd Foundationers would still meddle in the affairs of mortals
for that matter, Seldon violates his own principal, because he single-handedly does change the course of the galaxy, though not completely, of course. and could psychohistory have predicted that?
..Asimov argues (yes I know it's "just" SciFi) that you need an overwhelmingly large amount of "individuals" to extrapolate the behaviour of "societies", and you don't even have to know how the individuals act individually. [...] I agree with him,
for that matter, Seldon violates his own principal, because he single-handedly does change the course of the galaxy, though not completely, of course. and could psychohistory have predicted that?
In Asimov's Foundation Series, a principle of psychohistory is that one cannot predict the future based off of individual behaviour but only on its statistical aggregates. It is interesting therefore that Seldon is the individual which single-handedly transforms the galaxy, and I wonder, could psychohistory have predicted what Seldon accomplished?
If Wolfram has claimed to have invented the science of complexity, then it is a little vexing, because it isn't true. but i haven't read his book, and I've only read one review.
as for popularized accounts of complexity. yes there are plenty. but there are even more papers and books out there that are meaningful. in fact the literature is so vast that i'm drowning in it. but then again, I'm not only looking at fractals and power laws.
I have the feeling - but could not proove this yet - that a dynamic combination of local optima searches and global optima searching leads to self-modifications to the structure in which the agents live, in such a way that the structure suits the needs of the original fitness function, which desribes the problem that we are trying to solve. Since the fitness function itself is a variant in time in most problems, it is logical to assume that the networks are never in a static state, so global optima searching will modify the network constantly, while local optima searching will try to exploit network capabilities best.
I'm sorry. but could you clarify? What you are saying seems to be interesting, but I'm not sure I understand it. thanks
There is a danger that any social science will be misused by politicians or academics outside the field. In fact this has been historically the case.
I sympathize with your point; however, it doesn't make this kind of science untrue.
I think people are trying to get too much credit for this new area of research. This is not new, it has existed for a years. And the "Old Kind of Science" has a lot of merit too. The difference between the two is not a mathimatical discovery or a physical theory, it is computing power.
i think you are basically right. the big difference is computation power. but then again I think more things have changed than that which have encouraged these approaches.
If you want a mathematical description of "tipping points", take a look at Mark Granovetter's work on threshold models of collective behavior. Gladwell's book is based his work (though he only references Granovetter's work on how people get jobs).
could you give a more thorough description of sociological threshold models?
thanks
the science of networks is really just one branch of the emerging science of complexity. What is really interesting is that game theorists will borrow from network theorists, network theorists from game theorists, game theorists from evolutionary theorists, evolutionary theorists from game theorists, network theorists from evolutionary theorists, evolutionary theorists from AI theorists, and all of them from linguistics, philosophy, cognitive sciences, economics, and the other social sciences, computer modeling, agent-based modeling, etc. and visa versa. This is the future, and the future is bright.
The science of networks is not so new, but it is gaining importance rapidly. I'm interested in the application of network theory to the flow of information in structured populations. Network theory would be part of this, but so would other social theories (kinship, information, psychology, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
and the waste problems of fission power generation would be lessed, though not eliminated perhaps, by a combination of responsible management and recycling waste.
and in any case folks, there are natural fission reactors here on earth anyway.
and if i'm not mistaken, nuclear fission keeps the earth's core nice and hot
I agree. We should honour them by continuing space exploration.
well if you don't clean your potatoes very well...
are you sure that only those chemicals that the plant recognizes get absorbed? even if they are water soluble, for example?
www.erowid.com
I got this info from Hallucinogenic Plants: A golden guide some old book my father had from the 70's
its a long read. but i think i got the gist of it by browsing through it.
prozac potato anyone?
But its organic!
so it must be good!
But its natural!
So it must be good!
lol
Of course the record companies wouldn't like you to backup your legitmately bought mp3's on a p2p network.
actually, buswolley is right.
I don't know about the cost, specifically. but i do know that the sound-boards in major studios cost between 200,000 and a million.
they have such fancy cool words that don't mean anything.
ok maybe i'm trolling, of is it flamebaiting?
i'm not sure what you mean by empirical logic. but I am personally critical with the post-modern critique in anthropology of rationality. they seem to assume that rationality means profit maximization and vulgar utilitarianism. but i think that people can rationally pursue irrational ends. utility is a function of cultural and personal values. i want to smoke. it gives me a utility. i value it. i pursue it in a rational manner by lighting up. but of course, if i value health, then maybe i shouldn't light up. the rationality of any given activity is determined partially by the questions frame of reference. perhaps then we should talk about actions as being made up of the physical and the intentional. wait! isn't this Hegel? bah i'm not up on my philosophy.
for that matter, Seldon violates his own principal, because he single-handedly does change the course of the galaxy, though not completely, of course. and could psychohistory have predicted that?
for that matter, Seldon violates his own principal, because he single-handedly does change the course of the galaxy, though not completely, of course. and could psychohistory have predicted that?
In Asimov's Foundation Series, a principle of psychohistory is that one cannot predict the future based off of individual behaviour but only on its statistical aggregates. It is interesting therefore that Seldon is the individual which single-handedly transforms the galaxy, and I wonder, could psychohistory have predicted what Seldon accomplished?
of the emerging science of complexity Damn funny, that.. mod this up, folks. he's identified a pun!
its my pet peeve too. this is especially true when it comes to statistics. journalists present these in ways that mortifies the statiticians!
If Wolfram has claimed to have invented the science of complexity, then it is a little vexing, because it isn't true. but i haven't read his book, and I've only read one review. as for popularized accounts of complexity. yes there are plenty. but there are even more papers and books out there that are meaningful. in fact the literature is so vast that i'm drowning in it. but then again, I'm not only looking at fractals and power laws.
I'm sorry. but could you clarify? What you are saying seems to be interesting, but I'm not sure I understand it. thanks
( :
There is a danger that any social science will be misused by politicians or academics outside the field. In fact this has been historically the case. I sympathize with your point; however, it doesn't make this kind of science untrue.
i think you are basically right. the big difference is computation power. but then again I think more things have changed than that which have encouraged these approaches.
it is better to say that this is an institute. there are no teaching positions at the santa fe institute. but everything else is quite true.
could you give a more thorough description of sociological threshold models? thanks
The science of networks is not so new, but it is gaining importance rapidly. I'm interested in the application of network theory to the flow of information in structured populations. Network theory would be part of this, but so would other social theories (kinship, information, psychology, etc.)
for interesting papers on networks go to:
http://www.santafe.edu
the center for the science of complexity
could it be maybe that scientists just don't like to be called hobbits?