There is something like 5 million Jews in the USA. There are far more Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Russian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans however there has never been a relationship on par with Israel with any of those nations/regions.
Because of Middle East's economic/strategic importance and for a long time, (until the first Gulf War), Israel was our only real ally in the region. Therefore we created a very strong relationship with them which included arming them with our weaponry. To claim that Israel has some intimate relationship with the American populace is off base. China, Ireland, and Mexico have much greater roots in our nation yet I don't see the US arming China or Mexico.
Hopefully we will have widthdrawn from the region because we severed our addiction to foreign oil. Therefore we let Israel and Iran nuke each other and fight it out. The same thing if Pakistan and India nuked each other. Or Russia and China... or...
1. Diplomacy, so far has failed. 2. Air strikes, don't know where all the facilities are and many of those we do are located so far underground that conventional weapons are useless. Not only that but Iran would no doubt cut off oil supplies which would cause an oil crisis. 3. Military invasion, not enough troops because of our excursion into Iraq. The only possible alternative is a draft. 4. Leave it for the next administration to sort out, the most likely scenario.
The article may be biased but you can always discern some truth.
1. Perelman is unconcerned with fame and praise. 2. Yau is concerned with fame and praise. 3. Perelman did most the finishing work on the Poincaire conjecture. 4. Yau and co. released a paper on Perelman's work with only passing mention of Perelman. 5. Perelman feels scorned and isolated.
That 1982 award was when he was in high school. Also from those who have attended Perelman's "whirlwind" tour in 2003, he wasn't very social or lucid in his explanations. Also it's apparent that he doesn't feel compelled to describe his findings. As other mathematicians in similar circumstances take every lecture tour they are offered. He's not wealthy and currently living with his mother who lives off her pension. To him the price of accepting the prize and money, which would mean being thrown back into the spotlight, is not worth it.
Also one has to recognize that untreated mental disorders and illness only get worse with age.
Wow that's funny cause I recommend Linux on a daily basis. Of course I preface it with TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) and the price for a free, stable and secure OS is a higher learning curve and a possible change in usage habits. I recommend SLED 10 or Ubuntu, and always offer my help in setting everything up. I have no problem spending a few hours teaching someone basic Linux usage and helping them set up a network or a printer.
And that's how Linux is going to gain momentum, through a grassroots effort. Of course if you aren't willing to spend any time or effort spreading Linux the easiest thing to do is not recommend it.
However Math stands apart from other fields where one can be right in something and never need others to confirm your accomplishment. The only reason in Mathematics to introduce your findings is for the benefit for others (Perelman's apparent motivation) and to seek praise.
Also there should be two things that should be obvious from Perelman's behavior. One he is not very good at explaining his results. He might suffer from a mild form of dyslexia where it is extraordinarily difficult to explain one's ideas. Also he might suffer from social anxiety and therefore has a hard time dealing with people. From this it's not hard to conclude he excels at math because math is ultimately a solitary endeavor. Not only that, but a life as a Mathematician can be removed from abundant social interaction. Yet now because of his famous results he has introduced two things to his mathematical life which he tried to avoid, explaining things to people and social interaction. You can now see why he may have given up on math all together.
That's only half of it. You also have to include "as long as my choice does not restrict the freedom of others". Without that clause simply "choice" would lead to less freedom than more freedom. I think the majority of FSF advocates have no problem with a person using proprietary software as long as it doesn't restrict their own freedoms. For example having proprietary software forced upon you, like certain kinds of DRM. But as long as there remains a choice between Free and Non-Free there shouldn't be an issue.
It's quiet simple. Children brains are in the development stage therefore whatever they learn is quickly embedded in the structure of the brain. Not only that but because of the higher level of brain activity resulting from development; children learn much quicker.
Now take a child at age 8 and have a chess master teach them chess for 6 years. At the same time take an adult with relatively the same intelligence at age 24 and teach them chess with the same chess master for 6 years. In 6 years the child would be dominate against the adult, because comparatively the child did 8-12 years of learning in that 6 year span. Not only that the relational structures created in this time will be firmly embedded in the child's brain. The child will be quicker. As for the adult he will still be a strong player but it took him longer to learn and what he did learn takes a much longer time to take root.
The adult will always be lacking behind the child, unless of course the child takes a break for a few years. But of course the child could return almost effortlessly while an adult would struggle to relearn some things that were forgotten. So to answer your question is there a critical phase in child development? Yes, but it doesn't mean an adult can never become good at something because they didn't take advantage of this phase. They will just have to work harder.
Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
You do realize that "24" is broadcast on an air station? Anyone with a TV, VCR and Antenna could watch and record all of "24" for free (excluding cost of TV, antenna, VCR, tapes, electricty, etc) and legally.
However it does happen and it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there is no difference between specifically targeting civilians and hitting civilians while targeting military targets.
There is an easy way to get around this, equate civilians with military targets. It was common in WW2, Vietnam and now the terrorists do it. We try to avoid such things in Afghanistan and Iraq but it still happens. And what's that old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It becomes a power grab when you make the argument in order to help those in need you must kill innocent cilivians. We call this argument, rationale for war.
Do realize that the concepts of good and evil were created by those who wanted to obtain and keep power. The terrorists do it to gain power and our governments do it to keep power. And in the end we're just sheep to be slaughtered. If only we could collectively see the man behind the curtain and realize that we are killing each other for nothing.
The terrorists don't even have to be successful anymore. As long as they scare the shit out of everyone, they get their point across. And instead of the media (US) trying to calm fears and provide decent analysis they just throw gasoline on the fire. Meanwhile the government is all for fear-mongering since it equates into more power.
What happened to the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?
Yeah but Republicans have turned manipulating the American public into an art form. Then again you can't really blame the Republicans; it's really the public's fault for being so easily manipulated.
The Truth is always the Truth, it never changes. Don't confuse human knowledge for the Truth. Sure Wikiality could be applied to other records of human knowledge but Wikipedia is a glowing example of embracing a "democratization of truth".
Truthiness is thinking something is true because you believe it is true regardless of the Truth. Wikiality is believing something is true because the majority believe it is true regardless of the Truth.
Yes, but and my point is that this is actually true of all representations of human knowledge - EXCEPT wikipedia.
Well I think wikipedia does the best job so far as recording the state changes in human knowledge and the transitions between states. If that is what you are trying to say I agree with you.
There is a connection between perceived importance and the length of an article. The more important someone thinks a subject is the more they know about it and the more they want to talk about it.
You're also making the mistake that irrelevant information should be deleted. Why? I could certainly see some kind of tag being added to information we (at the time) consider to be less important, or maybe putting it in an archive of some sort to avoid "clutter".
I'm not making that mistake, Wikipedia is. In 50 years, "Truthiness" may be seen as less important than people perceive it today therefore less people will have less to say about it. I'm sure someone will say "why is this article so long?" and will clean it up to the basic necessary facts. And no one will argue because they won't perceive it as important as we do today.
Well I agree that Wikipedia has more information in that you can discover what a particular group of people thought about a subject at a certain point in time. Also Wikipedia records disputes in its talk pages. However that was not Colbert's point. Wikipedia like human knowledge is fluid in that is ever changing. The Truth never changes, it is always the same.
Yet the article on Lutheranism is still shorter than the article on Truthiness. The Lutheran movement had a much larger impact on world history than the word 'truthiness'. That was Colbert's overall point; Wikipedia does not represent reality but a subset of reality which he coined Wikiality.
Wikipedia represents the state of human knowledge at some point in time which is vastly different than the Truth. In 50 years an article about Truthiness might be just one line while the article about Lutheranism will still be the same length, if not longer. Wikipedia only has the "truth of the moment" while the Truth is something timeless.
Slashdot Mirror
There is something like 5 million Jews in the USA. There are far more Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Russian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans however there has never been a relationship on par with Israel with any of those nations/regions.
Because of Middle East's economic/strategic importance and for a long time, (until the first Gulf War), Israel was our only real ally in the region. Therefore we created a very strong relationship with them which included arming them with our weaponry. To claim that Israel has some intimate relationship with the American populace is off base. China, Ireland, and Mexico have much greater roots in our nation yet I don't see the US arming China or Mexico.
That's implied in #4 unless of course a Republican wins the next presidential election.
The real question is, what happens then?
...
Hopefully we will have widthdrawn from the region because we severed our addiction to foreign oil. Therefore we let Israel and Iran nuke each other and fight it out. The same thing if Pakistan and India nuked each other. Or Russia and China... or
1. Diplomacy, so far has failed.
2. Air strikes, don't know where all the facilities are and many of those we do are located so far underground that conventional weapons are useless. Not only that but Iran would no doubt cut off oil supplies which would cause an oil crisis.
3. Military invasion, not enough troops because of our excursion into Iraq. The only possible alternative is a draft.
4. Leave it for the next administration to sort out, the most likely scenario.
The article may be biased but you can always discern some truth.
1. Perelman is unconcerned with fame and praise.
2. Yau is concerned with fame and praise.
3. Perelman did most the finishing work on the Poincaire conjecture.
4. Yau and co. released a paper on Perelman's work with only passing mention of Perelman.
5. Perelman feels scorned and isolated.
That 1982 award was when he was in high school. Also from those who have attended Perelman's "whirlwind" tour in 2003, he wasn't very social or lucid in his explanations. Also it's apparent that he doesn't feel compelled to describe his findings. As other mathematicians in similar circumstances take every lecture tour they are offered. He's not wealthy and currently living with his mother who lives off her pension. To him the price of accepting the prize and money, which would mean being thrown back into the spotlight, is not worth it.
Also one has to recognize that untreated mental disorders and illness only get worse with age.
Wow that's funny cause I recommend Linux on a daily basis. Of course I preface it with TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) and the price for a free, stable and secure OS is a higher learning curve and a possible change in usage habits. I recommend SLED 10 or Ubuntu, and always offer my help in setting everything up. I have no problem spending a few hours teaching someone basic Linux usage and helping them set up a network or a printer.
And that's how Linux is going to gain momentum, through a grassroots effort. Of course if you aren't willing to spend any time or effort spreading Linux the easiest thing to do is not recommend it.
However Math stands apart from other fields where one can be right in something and never need others to confirm your accomplishment. The only reason in Mathematics to introduce your findings is for the benefit for others (Perelman's apparent motivation) and to seek praise.
Also there should be two things that should be obvious from Perelman's behavior. One he is not very good at explaining his results. He might suffer from a mild form of dyslexia where it is extraordinarily difficult to explain one's ideas. Also he might suffer from social anxiety and therefore has a hard time dealing with people. From this it's not hard to conclude he excels at math because math is ultimately a solitary endeavor. Not only that, but a life as a Mathematician can be removed from abundant social interaction. Yet now because of his famous results he has introduced two things to his mathematical life which he tried to avoid, explaining things to people and social interaction. You can now see why he may have given up on math all together.
Isn't the definition of "freedom" choice?
That's only half of it. You also have to include "as long as my choice does not restrict the freedom of others". Without that clause simply "choice" would lead to less freedom than more freedom. I think the majority of FSF advocates have no problem with a person using proprietary software as long as it doesn't restrict their own freedoms. For example having proprietary software forced upon you, like certain kinds of DRM. But as long as there remains a choice between Free and Non-Free there shouldn't be an issue.
It's quiet simple. Children brains are in the development stage therefore whatever they learn is quickly embedded in the structure of the brain. Not only that but because of the higher level of brain activity resulting from development; children learn much quicker.
Now take a child at age 8 and have a chess master teach them chess for 6 years. At the same time take an adult with relatively the same intelligence at age 24 and teach them chess with the same chess master for 6 years. In 6 years the child would be dominate against the adult, because comparatively the child did 8-12 years of learning in that 6 year span. Not only that the relational structures created in this time will be firmly embedded in the child's brain. The child will be quicker. As for the adult he will still be a strong player but it took him longer to learn and what he did learn takes a much longer time to take root.
The adult will always be lacking behind the child, unless of course the child takes a break for a few years. But of course the child could return almost effortlessly while an adult would struggle to relearn some things that were forgotten. So to answer your question is there a critical phase in child development? Yes, but it doesn't mean an adult can never become good at something because they didn't take advantage of this phase. They will just have to work harder.
Because I hate "24".
Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
You do realize that "24" is broadcast on an air station? Anyone with a TV, VCR and Antenna could watch and record all of "24" for free (excluding cost of TV, antenna, VCR, tapes, electricty, etc) and legally.
However it does happen and it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there is no difference between specifically targeting civilians and hitting civilians while targeting military targets.
There is an easy way to get around this, equate civilians with military targets. It was common in WW2, Vietnam and now the terrorists do it. We try to avoid such things in Afghanistan and Iraq but it still happens. And what's that old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It becomes a power grab when you make the argument in order to help those in need you must kill innocent cilivians. We call this argument, rationale for war.
Do realize that the concepts of good and evil were created by those who wanted to obtain and keep power. The terrorists do it to gain power and our governments do it to keep power. And in the end we're just sheep to be slaughtered. If only we could collectively see the man behind the curtain and realize that we are killing each other for nothing.
The terrorists don't even have to be successful anymore. As long as they scare the shit out of everyone, they get their point across. And instead of the media (US) trying to calm fears and provide decent analysis they just throw gasoline on the fire. Meanwhile the government is all for fear-mongering since it equates into more power.
What happened to the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?
Yeah but Republicans have turned manipulating the American public into an art form. Then again you can't really blame the Republicans; it's really the public's fault for being so easily manipulated.
Obviously the only people who can solve this dilemma are Libertarians.. oh wait.
The overall point was the fluid nature of truth
The Truth is always the Truth, it never changes. Don't confuse human knowledge for the Truth. Sure Wikiality could be applied to other records of human knowledge but Wikipedia is a glowing example of embracing a "democratization of truth".
Truthiness is thinking something is true because you believe it is true regardless of the Truth. Wikiality is believing something is true because the majority believe it is true regardless of the Truth.
The key word is 'perceived'.
Why would someone "clean it up" and delete information?
Because they don't think it's important. The same reason they clean/delete articles now.
Yes, but and my point is that this is actually true of all representations of human knowledge - EXCEPT wikipedia.
Well I think wikipedia does the best job so far as recording the state changes in human knowledge and the transitions between states. If that is what you are trying to say I agree with you.
There is a connection between perceived importance and the length of an article. The more important someone thinks a subject is the more they know about it and the more they want to talk about it.
You're also making the mistake that irrelevant information should be deleted. Why? I could certainly see some kind of tag being added to information we (at the time) consider to be less important, or maybe putting it in an archive of some sort to avoid "clutter".
I'm not making that mistake, Wikipedia is. In 50 years, "Truthiness" may be seen as less important than people perceive it today therefore less people will have less to say about it. I'm sure someone will say "why is this article so long?" and will clean it up to the basic necessary facts. And no one will argue because they won't perceive it as important as we do today.
Well I agree that Wikipedia has more information in that you can discover what a particular group of people thought about a subject at a certain point in time. Also Wikipedia records disputes in its talk pages. However that was not Colbert's point. Wikipedia like human knowledge is fluid in that is ever changing. The Truth never changes, it is always the same.
Yet the article on Lutheranism is still shorter than the article on Truthiness. The Lutheran movement had a much larger impact on world history than the word 'truthiness'. That was Colbert's overall point; Wikipedia does not represent reality but a subset of reality which he coined Wikiality.
Wikipedia represents the state of human knowledge at some point in time which is vastly different than the Truth. In 50 years an article about Truthiness might be just one line while the article about Lutheranism will still be the same length, if not longer. Wikipedia only has the "truth of the moment" while the Truth is something timeless.
Somebody is living in Wikiality.