I wouldn't go that far. Initially, the axioms were chosen as self-evident. But later... The Axiom of Choice. This one is not self-evident, nor could it be called an observation. It does however make for some interesting mathematics. The Continuum Hypothesis also falls into this category. We can either accept it or reject it as an axiom, and the resulting mathematics is consistent, provided the underlying set theory is consistent. Again, CH could hardly be classified as an observation.
Urgency and aggravation are measured on their own relative scale, as percentages of unity (0.0->1.0)
I realize that it's a joke. Sadly, in some journals this kind of stuff actually passes for research. Happiness and aggravation can't be measured with a ruler.
Current mathematical tools are mostly targeting applications in grant engineering.
I don't see how this particular formula is testable. How does one quantify urgency or aggravation in order to test the model? Methinks they left out the most important variable, B for Bullshit, measured in metric tons.;)
Uhhh, penalties have been attached to potential. I read today that faced with the fact that Hussein had no WMD's, Bush basically replied that he had the means and the intent to do it. Minority report anyone? Welcome to the brave new world.
I can't put widgets into my scanner or photocopier and reproduce them. Nor can I reproduce gold, or Mercedes Benz automobiles using just a little electricity. Many things cost a lot of money because of actual scarcity. There is a finite amount of gold on the planet --- period. Information is deliberately made artificially scarce for reasons of profit. The people who create the works do not usually create the scarcity --- publishing companies do. I have a very limited amount of money, and about 30 more years of life (give or take). I am not going to wait indefinitely for a certain book to appear at a used book store at a reasonable price if I can copy one on loan. To the greed heads --- tough shit!
Although not fair use, sometimes I need a copy for mere use. Just the other day, I went looking for a copy of Insect-Eating Plants and How to Grow Them by Adrian Slack. My initial thought was to purchase this book. That is, until I discovered it is OOP and used copies run from $100 to $220 for a paperback edition. This book is not a novel, but a reference, to viewed repeatedly as more information is needed. I have three options:
1) pay the exhorbitant price tag for my own copy.
2) borrow it on ILL every time I need some facts from the book.
3) borrow it once and scan it into the computer.
Option 3 is starting to look pretty good. Although I don't know what the original price was, I suspect that it was less than $100 U.S. If available and affordable I would be willing to pay.
An even more extreme example. Certain comic books command a price in the $30,000 range (or higher). Supposing that the comic is never reprinted in any form, is it right that the only people that can view a copy are those rich enough to afford one? Now before you start in with "Well, by extension, you are saying that it's not right that poor people should do without a Mercedes because they can't afford one; ergo, it is okay for them to steal one," consider that we are talking about information --- cheaply reproducible information --- information that is NOT reproduced because the demand is not sufficiently high to justify the expense of running off a batch of copies. Also, bear in mind that the purpose of writing and illustrating a comic or a plant-growing howto is not solely to make money, but to get the information out for the people to see. The artist wants people to see his comic art.
The original artist didn't set the artificially inflated price for his work. If Slack wants $100 for his book, I'll pay it. But paying $100 to a used book seller for a book that costs $20 is fucking outrageous. Slack won't get the extra $80, a greedy opportunist will.
Maybe --- but I doubt it. You do realize that chloroform is carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and destroys kidney and liver tissue. In other words, it's horrible shit that you don't want near anything you plan to ingest. Here is some data to back up my assertion that steam does a good job of extracting caffeine. We see that as the temperature of the water goes from 25 to 100 degrees Celsius, the solubility of caffeine increases from 22mg to a whopping 670mg per mL.
Re:Mental disorders are classifications
on
Coffee is Addictive
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Jesus. That definition is so broad in scope as to include almost everything. So, when someone nearly sideswipes me in traffic and I get pissed-off and start swearing like I'm afflicted with coprolalia, it's a mental disorder.
There is a problem with this definition. What exactly is normal cognitive behavior? Mine varies with the amount of sleep, work, caffeine, etc. I've said it for years --- psychiatrists, sociologists, and their ilk are not real scientists. They are charlatans that clothe their gobbledygook in pseudo-mathematical formulae and reams of data in order to fool the laymen. And it works a great deal of the time --- but not all the time. Serge Lang talks about this kind of thing in "Challenges".
And I'm sure that I mean that unless there is zero mg of caffeine in espresso, that drinking espresso results in caffeine intake which yields an enhanced feeling of pep --- unless mathematics has changed in the last couple of hours.
And, further down the page, we see that espresso roast is 1.32% caffeine, in a range of 1.17% to 1.37% for represented blends/roasts. In fact, there isn't a great deal of variance between the varietals and straights either. But what do I know? I haven't had the decades of serious training in all the intricate details of coffee brewing and caffeine extraction that the employees at Starbucks receive.
A couple years ago, I read a little story in a book or magazine (I wish I could recall) that went something like: Suppose some people discovered a plant that could be used to make an addictive beverage that caused sleep dysfunction, an elevated pulse, sweating, etc. This went on for about 5 paragraphs. It made it sound like this substance was some real nasty stuff. It was phrased in a way similar to fear-mongering anti-drug propaganda. Then came the punchline --- this horrible substance was (drum roll) coffee! The story was part of a larger collection/book advocating drug legalization (or decriminalization). If anyone has read this, please let me know the source. Danke.
Perhpas the biggest misconception is that multiple shots of espresso will really light you up. Wrong.
Not a misconception: a fact. If the espresso isn't pepping me up, what is? The demi-mug?
All you are getting is a very concentrated flavor not a super boost of caffiene. That is cuz by the time it gets in to your latte the beans have been deeply roasted (to an espresso roast) and then 'super brewed' (as compared to traditional drip coffee)in the espresso maker.
This flies in the face of a chemical experiment I did in organic lab. We STEAM EXTRACTED caffeine from some coffee grounds. You wouldn't believe the volume of crystals that precipitated from solution. "Super brewing", by which I take it you mean steam extraction, does an excellent job of pulling caffeine from the grounds.
You are not drinking NEAR enough of it then. Like the guy said in "I Come in Peace" while adding pure caffeine to his cup of coffee, the usual stuff couldn't keep a lab rat awake. I drink so much coffee and tea that I couldn't sleep without it.
So why not extend the argument a bit. Why not have different rules for different neighbourhoods? How about different rules for different streets?
I agree. Let's by all means extend the argument --- in the other direction. For the laws to be as uniform as possible, and to reduce the burden of the taxpayer having to pay for all these politicians, why not have a dictatorship? George Bush has as much as said that he would rise to the occasion. He would have the final say over everything. Just think how much pork barrel we could eliminate under a dictatorship!
What are you going to do when you munch a piece of pizza fresh out of a 500 degree oven and burn your wittle mowth? Are you going to sue yourself? How about General Electric? God perhaps? People in this country need to start assuming some personal responsibility. Or would you rather the government wipe your ass when you are too old for your mommy to do it?
Sorry, wrong again. Look here, and here for instance. In order to PRESERVE, not MASK the flavor, coffee should be served between 175 and 185 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonalds served theirs at 180 degrees, smack dab in the middle of the recommended range. I don't know about you, but I like a GOOD cup of coffee. But that implies a HOT cup of coffee.
The lawsuit was frivolous. People handle dangerous compounds all the time --- gasoline, drain cleaners, etc. People need to learn to BE CAREFUL.
There seems to be a lot of alarmism along the lines of "Microsoft is going to hijack the internet", or "MPAA/RIAA/Microsoft/Hardware manufacturers and friends are going to implement DRM so we won't be able to make copies of anything." You know what? I don't care. When all this comes about, I'll throw the DVD player in the trash, burn the TV, turn off the computer, and I don't know, LIVE maybe.
Besides, MOST of what is released today, whether a newspaper, book, movie, music recording, whatever, is --- in the immortal words of J.Jonah Jameson --- "Crap, crap, mega crap."
Surely if you've come up with something yourself, you deserve rights over it forever?
Mmmmmmmm NO! If you want to have exclusive rights to your work "forever" then keep your work under wraps --- don't ever let anyone see it/hear it/use it/know it exists. The whole POINT of copyright is to entice people NOT to do this, by allowing them to the exclusive right to profit from their creation for a LIMITED TIME in exchange for contributing the work to the public at a later date. That way, everybody wins.
Here is why --- Lucas is a CONTROL FREAK as should be obvious by listening/reading any of his interviews on the subject. To paraphrase, They are MY movies. I can do with them as I please. And, of course, he's right. However, I paid to see the originals in the theatres (along with millions of others) and purchased a few action figures and some trading cards, back in the day, thereby financing GL's later projects. And now he slaps the fans in their faces by refusing to re-release the originals? Okay. Fine! I'll buy the newly remastered Videodrome instead. Long live the new flesh!!!
Go George! He's absolutely right. He doesn't HAVE to spend millions of dollars touching up the original. And, he also doesn't HAVE to receive my $54.99 (or whatever will be charged) for the 3-dvd set because I'm not buying it, downloading it, or watching it.
I'm not going to throw rocks at Lucas. But, I'm not going to throw any money either.
For a while many mathematicians were cautious in their use of AC, and tried to always mention where it was necessarily used in a proof. Nowadays, it's not such a big deal, because the mathematical universe without AC is not very interesting. Measure theory, for example, becomes almost trivial.
If you are interested, and haven't read it already, Moore's "Zermelo's Axiom of Choice" is an excellent introduction to the history and use of this wonderful little addition to ZF.
My own personal favorite use of choice is the Banach-Tarski paradox. That result, and its proof, are beautiful!!
Slashdot Mirror
Those axioms are observations.
... The Axiom of Choice. This one is not self-evident, nor could it be called an observation. It does however make for some interesting mathematics. The Continuum Hypothesis also falls into this category. We can either accept it or reject it as an axiom, and the resulting mathematics is consistent, provided the underlying set theory is consistent. Again, CH could hardly be classified as an observation.
I wouldn't go that far. Initially, the axioms were chosen as self-evident. But later
Urgency and aggravation are measured on their own relative scale, as percentages of unity (0.0->1.0)
I realize that it's a joke. Sadly, in some journals this kind of stuff actually passes for research. Happiness and aggravation can't be measured with a ruler.
Current mathematical tools are mostly targeting applications in grant engineering.
Heh heh. True enough.
I don't see how this particular formula is testable. How does one quantify urgency or aggravation in order to test the model? Methinks they left out the most important variable, B for Bullshit, measured in metric tons. ;)
Uhhh, penalties have been attached to potential. I read today that faced with the fact that Hussein had no WMD's, Bush basically replied that he had the means and the intent to do it. Minority report anyone? Welcome to the brave new world.
I can't put widgets into my scanner or photocopier and reproduce them. Nor can I reproduce gold, or Mercedes Benz automobiles using just a little electricity. Many things cost a lot of money because of actual scarcity. There is a finite amount of gold on the planet --- period. Information is deliberately made artificially scarce for reasons of profit. The people who create the works do not usually create the scarcity --- publishing companies do. I have a very limited amount of money, and about 30 more years of life (give or take). I am not going to wait indefinitely for a certain book to appear at a used book store at a reasonable price if I can copy one on loan. To the greed heads --- tough shit!
Apparently it's not "cheaply reproducible information" if they can't afford to run off copies for just you.
If I can scan it in for free (well, whatever the cost of the power my scanner and equipment consume) then that makes it pretty cheap, doesn't it?
Although not fair use, sometimes I need a copy for mere use. Just the other day, I went looking for a copy of Insect-Eating Plants and How to Grow Them by Adrian Slack. My initial thought was to purchase this book. That is, until I discovered it is OOP and used copies run from $100 to $220 for a paperback edition. This book is not a novel, but a reference, to viewed repeatedly as more information is needed. I have three options:
1) pay the exhorbitant price tag for my own copy.
2) borrow it on ILL every time I need some facts from the book.
3) borrow it once and scan it into the computer.
Option 3 is starting to look pretty good. Although I don't know what the original price was, I suspect that it was less than $100 U.S. If available and affordable I would be willing to pay.
An even more extreme example. Certain comic books command a price in the $30,000 range (or higher). Supposing that the comic is never reprinted in any form, is it right that the only people that can view a copy are those rich enough to afford one? Now before you start in with "Well, by extension, you are saying that it's not right that poor people should do without a Mercedes because they can't afford one; ergo, it is okay for them to steal one," consider that we are talking about information --- cheaply reproducible information --- information that is NOT reproduced because the demand is not sufficiently high to justify the expense of running off a batch of copies. Also, bear in mind that the purpose of writing and illustrating a comic or a plant-growing howto is not solely to make money, but to get the information out for the people to see. The artist wants people to see his comic art.
The original artist didn't set the artificially inflated price for his work. If Slack wants $100 for his book, I'll pay it. But paying $100 to a used book seller for a book that costs $20 is fucking outrageous. Slack won't get the extra $80, a greedy opportunist will.
Maybe --- but I doubt it. You do realize that chloroform is carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and destroys kidney and liver tissue. In other words, it's horrible shit that you don't want near anything you plan to ingest. Here is some data to back up my assertion that steam does a good job of extracting caffeine. We see that as the temperature of the water goes from 25 to 100 degrees Celsius, the solubility of caffeine increases from 22mg to a whopping 670mg per mL.
Jesus. That definition is so broad in scope as to include almost everything. So, when someone nearly sideswipes me in traffic and I get pissed-off and start swearing like I'm afflicted with coprolalia, it's a mental disorder.
There is a problem with this definition. What exactly is normal cognitive behavior? Mine varies with the amount of sleep, work, caffeine, etc. I've said it for years --- psychiatrists, sociologists, and their ilk are not real scientists. They are charlatans that clothe their gobbledygook in pseudo-mathematical formulae and reams of data in order to fool the laymen. And it works a great deal of the time --- but not all the time. Serge Lang talks about this kind of thing in "Challenges".
And I'm sure that I mean that unless there is zero mg of caffeine in espresso, that drinking espresso results in caffeine intake which yields an enhanced feeling of pep --- unless mathematics has changed in the last couple of hours.
And, further down the page, we see that espresso roast is 1.32% caffeine, in a range of 1.17% to 1.37% for represented blends/roasts. In fact, there isn't a great deal of variance between the varietals and straights either. But what do I know? I haven't had the decades of serious training in all the intricate details of coffee brewing and caffeine extraction that the employees at Starbucks receive.
A couple years ago, I read a little story in a book or magazine (I wish I could recall) that went something like: Suppose some people discovered a plant that could be used to make an addictive beverage that caused sleep dysfunction, an elevated pulse, sweating, etc. This went on for about 5 paragraphs. It made it sound like this substance was some real nasty stuff. It was phrased in a way similar to fear-mongering anti-drug propaganda. Then came the punchline --- this horrible substance was (drum roll) coffee! The story was part of a larger collection/book advocating drug legalization (or decriminalization). If anyone has read this, please let me know the source. Danke.
Hmmm. Maybe caffeine has no physiological effect on the body at all? Perhaps it's all placebo effect. I doubt it.
Perhpas the biggest misconception is that multiple shots of espresso will really light you up. Wrong.
Not a misconception: a fact. If the espresso isn't pepping me up, what is? The demi-mug?
All you are getting is a very concentrated flavor not a super boost of caffiene. That is cuz by the time it gets in to your latte the beans have been deeply roasted (to an espresso roast) and then 'super brewed' (as compared to traditional drip coffee)in the espresso maker.
This flies in the face of a chemical experiment I did in organic lab. We STEAM EXTRACTED caffeine from some coffee grounds. You wouldn't believe the volume of crystals that precipitated from solution. "Super brewing", by which I take it you mean steam extraction, does an excellent job of pulling caffeine from the grounds.
You are not drinking NEAR enough of it then. Like the guy said in "I Come in Peace" while adding pure caffeine to his cup of coffee, the usual stuff couldn't keep a lab rat awake. I drink so much coffee and tea that I couldn't sleep without it.
So why not extend the argument a bit. Why not have different rules for different neighbourhoods? How about different rules for different streets?
I agree. Let's by all means extend the argument --- in the other direction. For the laws to be as uniform as possible, and to reduce the burden of the taxpayer having to pay for all these politicians, why not have a dictatorship? George Bush has as much as said that he would rise to the occasion. He would have the final say over everything. Just think how much pork barrel we could eliminate under a dictatorship!
Idiot!
That's what this country needs... MORE VOLCANOS!!
What are you going to do when you munch a piece of pizza fresh out of a 500 degree oven and burn your wittle mowth? Are you going to sue yourself? How about General Electric? God perhaps? People in this country need to start assuming some personal responsibility. Or would you rather the government wipe your ass when you are too old for your mommy to do it?
Sorry, wrong again. Look here, and here for instance. In order to PRESERVE, not MASK the flavor, coffee should be served between 175 and 185 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonalds served theirs at 180 degrees, smack dab in the middle of the recommended range. I don't know about you, but I like a GOOD cup of coffee. But that implies a HOT cup of coffee.
The lawsuit was frivolous. People handle dangerous compounds all the time --- gasoline, drain cleaners, etc. People need to learn to BE CAREFUL.
What you said.
There seems to be a lot of alarmism along the lines of "Microsoft is going to hijack the internet", or "MPAA/RIAA/Microsoft/Hardware manufacturers and friends are going to implement DRM so we won't be able to make copies of anything." You know what? I don't care. When all this comes about, I'll throw the DVD player in the trash, burn the TV, turn off the computer, and I don't know, LIVE maybe.
Besides, MOST of what is released today, whether a newspaper, book, movie, music recording, whatever, is --- in the immortal words of J.Jonah Jameson --- "Crap, crap, mega crap."
Surely if you've come up with something yourself, you deserve rights over it forever?
Mmmmmmmm NO! If you want to have exclusive rights to your work "forever" then keep your work under wraps --- don't ever let anyone see it/hear it/use it/know it exists. The whole POINT of copyright is to entice people NOT to do this, by allowing them to the exclusive right to profit from their creation for a LIMITED TIME in exchange for contributing the work to the public at a later date. That way, everybody wins.
Here is why --- Lucas is a CONTROL FREAK as should be obvious by listening/reading any of his interviews on the subject. To paraphrase, They are MY movies. I can do with them as I please. And, of course, he's right. However, I paid to see the originals in the theatres (along with millions of others) and purchased a few action figures and some trading cards, back in the day, thereby financing GL's later projects. And now he slaps the fans in their faces by refusing to re-release the originals? Okay. Fine! I'll buy the newly remastered Videodrome instead. Long live the new flesh!!!
You wouldn't happen to be ...? Naw! Couldn't be ... could it? Bobby Fischer? Is that you?
Go George! He's absolutely right. He doesn't HAVE to spend millions of dollars touching up the original. And, he also doesn't HAVE to receive my $54.99 (or whatever will be charged) for the 3-dvd set because I'm not buying it, downloading it, or watching it.
I'm not going to throw rocks at Lucas. But, I'm not going to throw any money either.
For a while many mathematicians were cautious in their use of AC, and tried to always mention where it was necessarily used in a proof. Nowadays, it's not such a big deal, because the mathematical universe without AC is not very interesting. Measure theory, for example, becomes almost trivial.
If you are interested, and haven't read it already, Moore's "Zermelo's Axiom of Choice" is an excellent introduction to the history and use of this wonderful little addition to ZF.
My own personal favorite use of choice is the Banach-Tarski paradox. That result, and its proof, are beautiful!!