Your.sig says "Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy."
Exactly like the original. Understanding that souls are not a thing is a step on the path to Enlightenment.
For those who don't get it, acceptance speeches at the Ig Nobel awards are strictly timed, and enforced by having a little girl call out "Please stop! I'm bored!" over and over once the award winner exceeds the time limit.
The comment is actually quite funny.
For most of human history people lived under the social systems these people are advocating. Enlightenment civilization, of which democracy and free markets are only two components, is less than 400 years old, and in that time we've seen a flowering of technological and cultural growth that dwarfs everything else that happened in the previous millennia of human civilization. Coincidence? Perhaps. But I think it more likely the neo-reactionaries are analogous to the cranks who write papers claiming to disprove quantum physics and then post them to the world using tools which depend upon those physics to function.
Science fiction author and Enlightenment champion David Brin has a blog post exploring some disadvantages of neo-feudalism. In that article he links to the Anti-reactionary FAQ with detailed criticisms of their arguments and goals.
I don't know how the algebra of media exposition to human awareness works, but in my personal estimation, in regards to aspects of reality and science, Bill Gates is at least 10 times the worth of Jenny McCarthy; let's hope that magnification propagates to all parents and re-assures them that vaccinating their children is the right thing to do.
Even more impressive. But the credit should go to their scientific understanding of how the world works, not to some (Western interpreted) mythology of primitive peoples.
Okay, I admit, I RTFA, and the crater in question has been dated as millions of years old, long before *anyone* claims humans capable of cultural transmission visited Australia.
According to the article, the author himself thinks that the aboriginal Australians were sophisticated enough to recognize impact craters on the landscape, and what might have caused them, and concoct legends about falling objects to explain them.
With all due respect to the parent post, the Indigenous Australians may have great knowledge that has been dismissed by their Western colonizers, but this is not evidence of such.
There are several promising animal models (caloric restriction, resveritol) for increasing longevity by 20-40%. Given that human beings already seem to live unusually long for mammals of our size, it is possible evolution (driven social/cultural advantages granted by long-lived friends and relatives) has already acted to take advantage of the biochemical processes involved.
What research has been done on human biochemistry to assess if that might be the case?
You make a very good point. Statistically it is unlikely that today's global temperature is "normal" for our epoch, and that normal baseline almost certainly has changed in the past 10's of millions of years and will continue to change on that same timescale into the future.
That said, the discussion and concern about "global warming" has nothing to do with what's "normal" for the planet. The concern is for effects that occur too quickly for our societies to adapt without massive disruption and accompanying economic collapse, famine, and war that might accompany such.
The planet doesn't care, and will be fine in the long run. It's we humans, and our civilization, that worry about survival.
I don't pretend to be a climatologist, merely someone who knows about statistics. I don't think anyone argues that a simple linear regression is evidence for global warming. I certainly don't.
There are sites put together by people who study this stuff in depth. If you're curious about the details of climate change arguments, rates of change, and pre-historical climate change, RealClimate is a good place to start.
If you perform the analysis you suggested, the trendline correlation coefficient is 0.1443. I may not remember much from my college statistics courses but I do remember that such a low number signifies very little statistical confidence or relevance.
As Alexander Pope said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."
You are correct that the correlation coefficient is low. For a simple linear regression this means that the variation explained by drawing the trendline is small compared to the total variation in the series. Those who went and made the scatterplot can see that for themselves.
However, the trend occurs over a large number of observations. A better measure of significance can also be derived with Excel, albeit you have to activate the "Analysis ToolPak" Add-In, and from there go to Data Analysis and Regression. From there you can get the p-value for the slope on the regression line.
The p-value can be interpreted as the probability, over all that time, of seeing the observed slope if the variation was due to purely random noise. Subject to assumptions about the nature of that noise (assessing which requires more climatological knowledge than I have) that probability is 0.000011, or less than 1 in 90000. Since the assumptions are fairly robust, and the p-value is so small, I think it is fair to say the trend is significant, for rational criteria of significance.
One reason epidemiologists are especially concerned about avian flu because flu pandemics have killed tens of millions of people before. This was in 1918 when the public health system was less developed, but population densities and the mobility of the human population are much greater today.
Another respondent has already detailed the other reasons why an avian flu is logistically more threatening. Your political/conspiracy theory may be completely true and valid, but the fact remains that people are concerned about the flu rather than ebola or airborne rabies because it's the disease that has been observed to kill in great numbers in the recent, documented past.
Your character suggestions aren't quite right... at least they're not the same ones predicted by JoyOfTech.
Re:Some folks have a wierd "static" idea of nature
on
Python vs. Alligator
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While you have a good point, it is important to remember that since the rise of human civilization and the spread of our species across the planet the number and rate of invasive species introductions have increased by orders of magnitude. Over geologic time ecosystems get invaded by a new species and reach a new equilibrium. Today systems are invaded by dozens of new species in the space of decades.
As to why we should care about a particular species... different people have diverse reasons. But at the very least our own species is dependent upon functioning ecosystems, and we don't yet completely understand how they work. Large predators (like alligators) are often "keystone species" which have effects throughout the entire system, and removing them might have chaotic results we can't imagine.
Or it might not. But one of my favorite epigrams on the subject is from Aldo Leopold: "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces."
You should also be careful of the impression you make on local police or military personel. I don't doubt that many of them would be suspicious of an American (since you asked about U.S. equipment) wandering around with electronic devices to map villages or roads.
Never mind that if the military or intelligence agencies really wanted to know where things were, satellite images would be even more accurate than a cheap/rugged GPS. Many West African countries make it illegal to photograph airports, military bases, police stations and the like.
I'm not saying don't do it, just be careful who sees you. No reason to give excuses for an anti-western, self-important jerk with an automatic rifle to harrass you.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously "God" means Your god. The one *You* believe in. What else could it mean? That's sarcasm, for the humor impaired.
Your .sig says "Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy."
Exactly like the original. Understanding that souls are not a thing is a step on the path to Enlightenment.
Did anyone else read that as "customer behavior tracking technology"?
Absolutely not. In contrast to Green Mountain, Apple is making obscene amounts of profit.
For those who don't get it, acceptance speeches at the Ig Nobel awards are strictly timed, and enforced by having a little girl call out "Please stop! I'm bored!" over and over once the award winner exceeds the time limit. The comment is actually quite funny.
For most of human history people lived under the social systems these people are advocating. Enlightenment civilization, of which democracy and free markets are only two components, is less than 400 years old, and in that time we've seen a flowering of technological and cultural growth that dwarfs everything else that happened in the previous millennia of human civilization. Coincidence? Perhaps. But I think it more likely the neo-reactionaries are analogous to the cranks who write papers claiming to disprove quantum physics and then post them to the world using tools which depend upon those physics to function.
Science fiction author and Enlightenment champion David Brin has a blog post exploring some disadvantages of neo-feudalism. In that article he links to the Anti-reactionary FAQ with detailed criticisms of their arguments and goals.
I don't know how the algebra of media exposition to human awareness works, but in my personal estimation, in regards to aspects of reality and science, Bill Gates is at least 10 times the worth of Jenny McCarthy; let's hope that magnification propagates to all parents and re-assures them that vaccinating their children is the right thing to do.
For so many reasons.
Even more impressive. But the credit should go to their scientific understanding of how the world works, not to some (Western interpreted) mythology of primitive peoples.
Okay, I admit, I RTFA, and the crater in question has been dated as millions of years old, long before *anyone* claims humans capable of cultural transmission visited Australia.
According to the article, the author himself thinks that the aboriginal Australians were sophisticated enough to recognize impact craters on the landscape, and what might have caused them, and concoct legends about falling objects to explain them.
With all due respect to the parent post, the Indigenous Australians may have great knowledge that has been dismissed by their Western colonizers, but this is not evidence of such.
You're thinking of an oscillation overthruster.
Why bother with a trip to Pluto when a Quickblade was is much better and available on Earth in New San Antonio?
"She must be at 9, 9, 9!"
There are several promising animal models (caloric restriction, resveritol) for increasing longevity by 20-40%. Given that human beings already seem to live unusually long for mammals of our size, it is possible evolution (driven social/cultural advantages granted by long-lived friends and relatives) has already acted to take advantage of the biochemical processes involved.
What research has been done on human biochemistry to assess if that might be the case?
You make a very good point. Statistically it is unlikely that today's global temperature is "normal" for our epoch, and that normal baseline almost certainly has changed in the past 10's of millions of years and will continue to change on that same timescale into the future.
That said, the discussion and concern about "global warming" has nothing to do with what's "normal" for the planet. The concern is for effects that occur too quickly for our societies to adapt without massive disruption and accompanying economic collapse, famine, and war that might accompany such.
The planet doesn't care, and will be fine in the long run. It's we humans, and our civilization, that worry about survival.
Also, dinosaurs are cool.
I don't pretend to be a climatologist, merely someone who knows about statistics. I don't think anyone argues that a simple linear regression is evidence for global warming. I certainly don't.
There are sites put together by people who study this stuff in depth. If you're curious about the details of climate change arguments, rates of change, and pre-historical climate change, RealClimate is a good place to start.
As Alexander Pope said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."
You are correct that the correlation coefficient is low. For a simple linear regression this means that the variation explained by drawing the trendline is small compared to the total variation in the series. Those who went and made the scatterplot can see that for themselves.
However, the trend occurs over a large number of observations. A better measure of significance can also be derived with Excel, albeit you have to activate the "Analysis ToolPak" Add-In, and from there go to Data Analysis and Regression. From there you can get the p-value for the slope on the regression line.
The p-value can be interpreted as the probability, over all that time, of seeing the observed slope if the variation was due to purely random noise. Subject to assumptions about the nature of that noise (assessing which requires more climatological knowledge than I have) that probability is 0.000011, or less than 1 in 90000. Since the assumptions are fairly robust, and the p-value is so small, I think it is fair to say the trend is significant, for rational criteria of significance.
You forgot to add "You insensitive clod."
She's one tough lady!
One reason epidemiologists are especially concerned about avian flu because flu pandemics have killed tens of millions of people before. This was in 1918 when the public health system was less developed, but population densities and the mobility of the human population are much greater today.
Another respondent has already detailed the other reasons why an avian flu is logistically more threatening. Your political/conspiracy theory may be completely true and valid, but the fact remains that people are concerned about the flu rather than ebola or airborne rabies because it's the disease that has been observed to kill in great numbers in the recent, documented past.
The fact that Donald Rumsfeld might be profiteering from the hype does not mean that avian flu is not a real threat.
No, no one knows what happened to you after you possessed Agent Cooper and escaped from the Black Lodge.
Surely any weighting must consider that, as the summary mentioned, this prank is a dupe of one pulled by Harvey Mudd twenty years before.
Though they should certainly get credit for moving the cannon across the country, rather than a comparative cross-town.
Your character suggestions aren't quite right... at least they're not the same ones predicted by JoyOfTech.
While you have a good point, it is important to remember that since the rise of human civilization and the spread of our species across the planet the number and rate of invasive species introductions have increased by orders of magnitude. Over geologic time ecosystems get invaded by a new species and reach a new equilibrium. Today systems are invaded by dozens of new species in the space of decades.
As to why we should care about a particular species... different people have diverse reasons. But at the very least our own species is dependent upon functioning ecosystems, and we don't yet completely understand how they work. Large predators (like alligators) are often "keystone species" which have effects throughout the entire system, and removing them might have chaotic results we can't imagine.
Or it might not. But one of my favorite epigrams on the subject is from Aldo Leopold: "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces."
The Touaregs are an ethnic group who follow a semi-nomadic lifestyle in the Sahara and Sahel.
You should also be careful of the impression you make on local police or military personel. I don't doubt that many of them would be suspicious of an American (since you asked about U.S. equipment) wandering around with electronic devices to map villages or roads.
Never mind that if the military or intelligence agencies really wanted to know where things were, satellite images would be even more accurate than a cheap/rugged GPS. Many West African countries make it illegal to photograph airports, military bases, police stations and the like.
I'm not saying don't do it, just be careful who sees you. No reason to give excuses for an anti-western, self-important jerk with an automatic rifle to harrass you.