I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
That was before the christian-right took over the Republican party. Now the government has to be involved with your personal life because if it isn't you are going to sin.
It's not arrogance when you actually are a brilliant and skilled creator in your field...in UK/America
Believe me I love Alan Moore but first off he's a writer. In the world of comic books this is sort of like having only one arm. Anyway I think Japan has the best comic book writers/artists.
Comic books/manga in Japan are huge. And the amount of titles is unbelievable. Yes a lot of it is junk but this is going to happen when there are so many titles. However the good ones are really good and there are a bunch of them. Plus there are titles for anyone.
Sometimes I wish America/UK would somehow adopt the business model of the Japanese. You can argue over the aesthetic value of Japanese manga but on the business side they are far beyond us.
It depends on your definition of "freedom". I tend to think of "freedom" as degrees of freedom. Like how large is your space to play with without intruding other people's space. And honestly unless under extreme economic conditions we all have large sandboxes. What isn't natural is people coming into my sandbox and knocking down my castle. Or conquering requies someone to exert force. I don't necessarily need to exert force to do nothing, which doesn't bother anyone.
When I stay still and exert no force I just move along the time dimension which is just decaying. Or entropy. This is the gradient.
there were no WMD in Iraq! this is the reason the Bush administration sold to us for going to war. so we find no WMD and suddenly they are not accountable?
A couple posts down someone attributed the almost same quote to Churchill, maybe they both said it. Anyway the truth which is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history is the complete opposite.
According to your logic, Nazi Germany would have beat Soviet Russia, the US would have beat North Vietnam, Great Britian would have defeated those rebellious 13 colonies, the South would have won the Civil War, the list goes on....
Sure our potential freedoms have increased but our choices continue to decrease. It just doesn't seem right that we have 200 different television stations but only two political parties. Yes we can speak out against our President during war but does it matter if no one listens? If no one cares?
How is a President that brought us to war (something a nation-state should only endeavor in for its own survival) under false pretenses still conducting business as usual? What if you made such a mistake at your job? You would have been fired a long time ago.
Corporate power increases and people power decreases. But the illusion is our freedoms are increasing. We have Blogs, we can exchange information freely and discuss our ideas. Yet Blogs are just toys and they do not cause real change. Real change happens when people sacrifice their lives for it. How free are we when our so called freedoms have no impact on the world.
The truth is we are losing our freedoms because we have become soft. We just don't care enough anymore. For the majority of Americans losing the ability to take a role in our government is worth being safe, well fed and having plenty of toys to play with.
It is because in America we believe that guns == freedom. That somehow if the big bad government goes out of control and takes away our freedom we can get it back with our guns. The reality is the government is taking away our freedoms slowly and those guns are not going to stop it. It is some sort of fantasy embedded into the American unconscious that we can earn our freedom through shooting people.
Freedom isn't earned through how many deaths you can inflict on the enemy but how many deaths you are willing to risk.
Well if they read each other blogs to find links to something outside of blogs. Then blogging is nothing but a human search engine. But really they read each other blogs and by blogs I mean their original content. And yes I don't get involved in blogging unless it's someone who I know outside of the blogosphere who happens to have a blog (like David Chalmers).
Anyway currently the traditional media has the monopoly on credible sources and uncredible ones too. But these are the sources that actually have important information. If you want information you need to make connections and go in the outside world. The day when people with important information go to bloggers first instead of newspapers/tv is the day blogging becomes an actual medium. Rather than what it is now... ham radio (at least with ham radio you had to pass a test.
The blogosphere is the biggest fraud in the world. Oh no the blogosphere will not link NYT articles because of their registration. I guess the NYT will go down in flames right? Pffft.... first of bloggers don't read real journalism because they are so full of themselves they only read each other blogs. It's sort of like the blind following the blind.
Believe me the NYT will still be around even after blogs have come and gone.
I definitely disagree with this claim. The axioms of QM and the Poincare group are definitely necessary axioms. But when you look at the process of constructing the Lagrangian for a nontrivial QFT model, you immediately see the application of numerous renormalization techniques for handling infinities and coming up with observables that match experiment. There are a few attempts (eg, algebraic QFT) at an axiomization, but I consider the matter incomplete.
I completely agree. There currently isn't a set of axioms that would actually derive QFT. But like you said QM and the Poincare group would have to be included in any such attempt. On a side note I tend to think renormalization techniques actually might cause the problems of axiomization. Maybe the infinities that appear in QFT actually exist in some way.
Check this out. Anyway from my understanding string theory in its modern form implies supersymmetry. If supersymmetry is disproven than string theory in it's current form is inconsistent. So yeah string theory isn't exactly dead but needs some major rework. So much rework that it might be unfixable.
No you're right. In the mathematical sense disproving supersymmetry would not disprove string theory but rather make it inconsistent. However a inconsistent theory in physics is pretty much false or disproven.
actually supersymmetry is a set of assumptions or axioms. the only thing you can derive from this set is supersymmetry. if you add consistent axioms you can derive new models that include supersymmetry. string theory is one of these models.
just like quantum field theory is the set of axioms from quantum mechanics plus the poincare group.
Well I said perhaps too loosely "down the road" implied string theory. Well yes other models can be derived from supersymmetry and string theory is not the only one.
Witten said that proving supersymmetry would be helpful in understanding string theory. From what I understand supersymmetry down the road implies string theory. So if supersymmetry is disproved by implication so is string theory. However if supersymmetry is proved is does not prove string theory. But rather add towards understanding and maybe later proving string theory.
Well the word disorder carries some weight, as in there is something wrong with you. Classifying a disorder via personality traits is a slippery slope. Also what defines the success of a group of personality traits? How happy a person is? Well if a person has rare personality traits that conflict with the majority then this may be the reason for unhappiness. However to classify these traits as some sort of disorder or abnormal may be wrong.
Is success defined by how well personality traits guarantee procreation? Well certain personality traits gravitate towards each other so you create groups of self-preserving personality traits that only procreate with each other. Is that what normal becomes? The group of traits that outnumber and outcreate the rest?
ahh thanks for clearing that up. In retrospect how legitimate is any disorder then? Seems to me to be rather subjective and qualitative. In other words they don't really know but they'll group certain traits and call it a disorder for heuristic purposes.
You sure it wasn't a psychologist you saw? I find it hard to believe a psychiatrist would basically say "it's up to you whether or not you have a mental illness". That's like saying "it's up to you whether or not you have cancer". If any doctor said that to me I'd call em a quack and look elsewhere.
I'm sorry but the article you mention is not within the blogosphere and therefore meaningless to today's society. Please either contact this "Aleph One" to create a blog and post his/her article there or remove it from your message. Thank You.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
That was before the christian-right took over the Republican party. Now the government has to be involved with your personal life because if it isn't you are going to sin.
It's not arrogance when you actually are a brilliant and skilled creator in your field. ..in UK/America
Believe me I love Alan Moore but first off he's a writer. In the world of comic books this is sort of like having only one arm. Anyway I think Japan has the best comic book writers/artists.
Comic books/manga in Japan are huge. And the amount of titles is unbelievable. Yes a lot of it is junk but this is going to happen when there are so many titles. However the good ones are really good and there are a bunch of them. Plus there are titles for anyone.
Sometimes I wish America/UK would somehow adopt the business model of the Japanese. You can argue over the aesthetic value of Japanese manga but on the business side they are far beyond us.
It depends on your definition of "freedom". I tend to think of "freedom" as degrees of freedom. Like how large is your space to play with without intruding other people's space. And honestly unless under extreme economic conditions we all have large sandboxes. What isn't natural is people coming into my sandbox and knocking down my castle. Or conquering requies someone to exert force. I don't necessarily need to exert force to do nothing, which doesn't bother anyone.
When I stay still and exert no force I just move along the time dimension which is just decaying. Or entropy. This is the gradient.
Information naturally wants to be free.
This probably makes less sense...
Not necessarily you probably just clicked the sign up for account button 5 minutes before I did.
Anyway the last post was just an attempt at humor like "hey whatever..." or like shrugging your shoulders.
Maybe you need to relax.
662 > 447
...under false pretenses...
there were no WMD in Iraq! this is the reason the Bush administration sold to us for going to war. so we find no WMD and suddenly they are not accountable?
how indeed....
A couple posts down someone attributed the almost same quote to Churchill, maybe they both said it. Anyway the truth which is obvious to anyone who studied a bit of history is the complete opposite.
According to your logic, Nazi Germany would have beat Soviet Russia, the US would have beat North Vietnam, Great Britian would have defeated those rebellious 13 colonies, the South would have won the Civil War, the list goes on....
Sure our potential freedoms have increased but our choices continue to decrease. It just doesn't seem right that we have 200 different television stations but only two political parties. Yes we can speak out against our President during war but does it matter if no one listens? If no one cares?
How is a President that brought us to war (something a nation-state should only endeavor in for its own survival) under false pretenses still conducting business as usual? What if you made such a mistake at your job? You would have been fired a long time ago.
Corporate power increases and people power decreases. But the illusion is our freedoms are increasing. We have Blogs, we can exchange information freely and discuss our ideas. Yet Blogs are just toys and they do not cause real change. Real change happens when people sacrifice their lives for it. How free are we when our so called freedoms have no impact on the world.
The truth is we are losing our freedoms because we have become soft. We just don't care enough anymore. For the majority of Americans losing the ability to take a role in our government is worth being safe, well fed and having plenty of toys to play with.
No, to conquer you need force. Freedom does not require force because it is the natural gradient.
It is because in America we believe that guns == freedom. That somehow if the big bad government goes out of control and takes away our freedom we can get it back with our guns. The reality is the government is taking away our freedoms slowly and those guns are not going to stop it. It is some sort of fantasy embedded into the American unconscious that we can earn our freedom through shooting people.
Freedom isn't earned through how many deaths you can inflict on the enemy but how many deaths you are willing to risk.
sorry for going offtopic...
one which helps me download pr0n faster.
Darth Vader is an outsourced space pirate.
Well if they read each other blogs to find links to something outside of blogs. Then blogging is nothing but a human search engine. But really they read each other blogs and by blogs I mean their original content. And yes I don't get involved in blogging unless it's someone who I know outside of the blogosphere who happens to have a blog (like David Chalmers).
Anyway currently the traditional media has the monopoly on credible sources and uncredible ones too. But these are the sources that actually have important information. If you want information you need to make connections and go in the outside world. The day when people with important information go to bloggers first instead of newspapers/tv is the day blogging becomes an actual medium. Rather than what it is now... ham radio (at least with ham radio you had to pass a test.
The blogosphere is the biggest fraud in the world. Oh no the blogosphere will not link NYT articles because of their registration. I guess the NYT will go down in flames right? Pffft.... first of bloggers don't read real journalism because they are so full of themselves they only read each other blogs. It's sort of like the blind following the blind.
Believe me the NYT will still be around even after blogs have come and gone.
Your analogy is flawed. Artists have never had a right to prevent you from looking at their work in a certain way.
You would think so but, in Soviet Russia...
I definitely disagree with this claim. The axioms of QM and the Poincare group are definitely necessary axioms. But when you look at the process of constructing the Lagrangian for a nontrivial QFT model, you immediately see the application of numerous renormalization techniques for handling infinities and coming up with observables that match experiment. There are a few attempts (eg, algebraic QFT) at an axiomization, but I consider the matter incomplete.
I completely agree. There currently isn't a set of axioms that would actually derive QFT. But like you said QM and the Poincare group would have to be included in any such attempt. On a side note I tend to think renormalization techniques actually might cause the problems of axiomization. Maybe the infinities that appear in QFT actually exist in some way.
Check this out. Anyway from my understanding string theory in its modern form implies supersymmetry. If supersymmetry is disproven than string theory in it's current form is inconsistent. So yeah string theory isn't exactly dead but needs some major rework. So much rework that it might be unfixable.
No you're right. In the mathematical sense disproving supersymmetry would not disprove string theory but rather make it inconsistent. However a inconsistent theory in physics is pretty much false or disproven.
actually supersymmetry is a set of assumptions or axioms. the only thing you can derive from this set is supersymmetry. if you add consistent axioms you can derive new models that include supersymmetry. string theory is one of these models.
just like quantum field theory is the set of axioms from quantum mechanics plus the poincare group.
Well I said perhaps too loosely "down the road" implied string theory. Well yes other models can be derived from supersymmetry and string theory is not the only one.
Witten said that proving supersymmetry would be helpful in understanding string theory. From what I understand supersymmetry down the road implies string theory. So if supersymmetry is disproved by implication so is string theory. However if supersymmetry is proved is does not prove string theory. But rather add towards understanding and maybe later proving string theory.
but IANAST.
Well the word disorder carries some weight, as in there is something wrong with you. Classifying a disorder via personality traits is a slippery slope. Also what defines the success of a group of personality traits? How happy a person is? Well if a person has rare personality traits that conflict with the majority then this may be the reason for unhappiness. However to classify these traits as some sort of disorder or abnormal may be wrong.
Is success defined by how well personality traits guarantee procreation? Well certain personality traits gravitate towards each other so you create groups of self-preserving personality traits that only procreate with each other. Is that what normal becomes? The group of traits that outnumber and outcreate the rest?
ahh thanks for clearing that up. In retrospect how legitimate is any disorder then? Seems to me to be rather subjective and qualitative. In other words they don't really know but they'll group certain traits and call it a disorder for heuristic purposes.
You sure it wasn't a psychologist you saw? I find it hard to believe a psychiatrist would basically say "it's up to you whether or not you have a mental illness". That's like saying "it's up to you whether or not you have cancer". If any doctor said that to me I'd call em a quack and look elsewhere.
I'm sorry but the article you mention is not within the blogosphere and therefore meaningless to today's society. Please either contact this "Aleph One" to create a blog and post his/her article there or remove it from your message. Thank You.