Ironically, you yourself cherry picked data -- Bush's college GPA -- in order to try to prove a point of Bush's lack of competence. Whether or not Bush is a bad President can be debated, but it's important that debate be on a rational basis. Either one's GPA is highly relevant or it's not.
What is at issue here is a basic human emotional response to believe and/or exagerrate everything negative about people or ideas we don't like, and to disbelieve and/or mitigate anything negative about people or ideas we do like. A consequence of the icreasing polarization of American politics has resulted in an inability for one side to say or admit anything positive about the other.
Kerry has to do with this in that he was the alternative to Bush and the assertion was made that implied that because Bush was a C-average student one would not expect him to be a good President. Given that Kerry was a worse student, one would not expect him to have made a better President, if grades are a determinant.
As to where the factoid came from, I don't recall, but it's probably the article you refer to. I don't rememebr the part about Kerry having improved more, but I do remember some debate over whether or not Kerry had more difficult classes. In any case, I would reject the notion that better grades in latter years means one is more "teachable" -- Kerry may simply have studied more, or had better instructors. I know many of the Freshman and Sophmore classes in universities are quite large and have some of the worst instructors. There are even some classes known for "weeding out" students. When I took modern physics I got a B even while I was getting Cs and Ds in courses that were supposed prerequisites for it.
Bottom line is: college grades are overrated. But if one believes in them so much as to want to bash Bush for a C-average, they have to also bash Kerry for the same average or be exposed as a hypocrite.
You didn't really answer my question. It seems *obvious* two electrons that are put into identical quantum states via experiment nevertheless arrived at that state via different paths. Again, we may not be able to tell which came from which world line, but in the hyperdimensional sense they would not be identical.
Wouldn't two particles in the same quantum state still have different world lines? So they wouldn't be identical, even if we couldn't tell which came from which line.
What you're basically describing is a what is known as a "hidden variable" theory. That is, you figure that it's not just that the two particles are correlated -- one always the opposite color of the other -- but rather that, when the particles are created, one is "really" blue and one is "really" white, and we just don't know which is which until we measure one of them.
Unfortunately, it turns out that this seemingly innocent picture DOES NOT DESCRIBE REALITY when it comes to subatomic particles. The actual why is difficult to explain without math, but basically physicists can construct experiments that, if the particles realy had one "color" (your hypothetical quantity) or the other before measurement, we can run them through an apparatus and make them behave in a certain way. It turns out that, in fact, if particles actually had one "color" or the other, the result would be one way, but the experiment gets a different result. Experiments confirm that, in fact, particles have an indeterminate "color", a true mixture (called a superposition) of "colors", until the appropriate measurement is made.
Note that there is quantum property called color that's unrelated here, so your use of the word can be confusing. You might want to use the word spin in the future, since spin works in exactly the way described above.
Anyway, what all this means physicists still debate. This is why you see talk of things like multiple universes, higher dimensions, non-local hidden variables, causality violation, etc. These are all attempts to explain in understandable terms what seems to be a very inexplicable universe.
I love all the liberals who are now trying to defend their anti-Capitalist hero Chavez on this point by claiming that since the news station was involved in trying to oust Chavez before, Chavez is justified. But they only think that because they think Chavez is a priori a good leader. If it was a tv station that was trying to oust a leader they didn't like -- say, impleach Bush -- they'd be all for it and declare any pull of the license as retaliatory and censorship. Come on, people, stand up for your principles for a change!
Challenger certainly was the fault of "rushing things". This was back when NASA was still thinking they could launch as many as 12 flights a year, and there was a lot of pressure schedule to fill commercial launch contracts as well as space science. The desire to launch on time was certainly a major factor in the decision to launch Challenger when they did. While a Challenger-style loss would probably have happened eventually, chances are it would not have happened on that particular flight.
As far as Columbia, that was more of a case of ignoring a problem that many people didn't think was a big problem and didn't really have an answer for if it turned out it WAS a big problem, so it was better out of sight and out of mind.
In both cases, long-term stand-downs were required to fix the problems. Even if NASA had recognized and tried to fix the problems in advance, it is likely they would have kept flying with the old designs until the new ones were ready. So in that sense, schedule pressure would have played a factor in increasing the risk of a failure of both types.
Actually, 3 planets rotate "backwards" - Venus, Uranus, and Pluto. Or 2 if you don't count Pluto. Or, if you flip north and south, then all of the planets except those 3 rotate backwards, along with the sun. It's all a matter of perspective.
What you say is certainly a core tenant of many Christian denominations, but not all. Whether or not there is original sin, whether or not divine grace is given or earned, the extent to which goood works can "get you in" to Heaven are all points of dispute and debate between different sects.
Do otherwise "good" people who generally do the "right" thing (in other words, they commit rare and seemingly minor sins, without malice or evil), but don't believe in Christ, still get into Heaven? If you think so, fine, but many Christians say no, which actually undermines the logic of Pascal's Wager: if I'm only following Christian teaching because I'm heding my bets in case God exists, God would see right through that that I'm not a true believer, and thus it wouldn't earn me anything. So I'd have to really *believe* in order to reap the benefits, in which case, I don't need the logic of Pascal's Wager to believe.
Now, another interesting argument is that "acting" Christian is necessary first in order to allow for the possibility of *true* belief, so by assuming the trappings you open your heart to the real thing. Something like method acting evoking real emotion, I suppose.
Yes. Although I doubt the skull absorbing it is the problem; rather, thinner skulls would absorb *less* radiation and allow more *through* to the soft tissues.
The wifi signal is in the same part of the EM spectrum as cellphones but it's not 'similar' to mobile phone masts, is it?
Yes, it's quite similar.
Isn't a phone mast several hundred/thousand times stronger?
Energy falls with the square of the distance. Yes, they're more powerful, but they also cover a much larger range. So if you were standing right next to one, it's probably stronger than your typical wifi, but at normal range, they're probably more compareable in strength.
Wasn't safety considered when they drew up the 802.11 specs?
Yes.
Basically, this is something that seems like it could be a problem, but there's no evidence of it.
From the simulation, I found the biggest difficulty in the frontal shot is not hitting the driver of the limo. But then, that's not such a bad thing, so long as it's a kill shot and you can get your next shots off before they can react. The car either slows or stops, so you're in good shape. But if you miss, then the driver could react and speed up. Still, running all the odds, it seems you're betting off shooting before the turn than after.
I've played through JFK Reloaded many times. If you fire at the times Oswald supposedly fired, you can pretty reasonably replicate the shots -- I scored a neck shot that went into Connelly and even the head shot. But to get the exact set of injuries is nearly impossible. It's very difficult to get a shot off that doesn't hit one of the SS agents.
The other thing that gets me is, as others have pointed out, why he didn't just shoot as the car was moving towards him up the plaza. It's a much easier short; after the turn, not only do you have the car moving left and away, but you've also got the tree obscuring the shot. The limo does slow down helpfully, but I don't know why I'd do the assassination that way.
Whether mind is physical or not is, if you pardon the term, immaterial. It's not an obvious premise that all physical processes are necessarily deterministic or random, or a mixture of the two. The idea is that choice acts in an independent, but still non-random, way.
Of course, one of the problems of materialism is that this notion of independent, non-deterministic action arising from physical substance seems rather unlikely and at odds with all other known physical phenomena. And on the other hand, for those materialists who embrace quantum mechanics, the idea of randomness underlying processes is rather problematic.
Perhaps the Many-Worlds interpretation provides us with an out. If all possibilities occur in multiple universe, then the materialist can still say these are deterministic, in a sense that encompasses the random nature of QM. But perhaps free will comes into play in the *choice* of which universe you or I experience. The problem that arises then is what to do with all these people in other universes, or the fact that your choice may lead you to one universe and I another. Are the vast majority of these people "soul-less", in that they don't truly experience and choose the way "I" do? Or are new indetities constantly being created, in which case, in what sense do "I" actually "choose" a universe, if in fact the "I" that is experiencing might simply have just now come into existance based on the non-choice of another "I"?
These sorts of questions of identity seem to be ultimately unresolvable. But I still cling to the classic notion of Free Will, as I see rather little point in existing in a universe that is either deterministic or purely random. Perhaps it is my crutch of "faith" in an otherwise fairly rational world-view.
This does not solve the problem. Either your decisions and actions are based on something (such as your circumstances and personality), in which case they are deterministic; or they are not, in which case they are random; or some combination of the two.
This is the exact same argument that the person in article makes, and one which I find totally wrong. It's a fallacy of the false choice: that it it either has to be deterministic or it has to be random. We talked this in Metaphysis in college, and it's simply not true. Many free will advocates will tell you that the concept of choice can be based on neither.
To put it in terms you use, it's not random. It is, as you say, "based on something", but that something is NOT deterministic. Nor is it random. It's CHOICE. Now, pure determinists simply can't wrap their head around this. They think anything you would WANT to do must be based on something deterministic, and the prospect of being governed by truly random processes is too terrifying to accept. So this either/or argument is certainly not new, but it's used almost entirely by determinists. There are very few "randomists". The vast majority of remaining free will philosophers believe in a third way that is neither. They believe in choice.
The power is supplied by an external connector. From the rules:
The Power Source will supply 6 Amperes of current at 5 Volts to the excavation hardware during the 30 minute excavation attempt. A measurement device will be used to detect a draw of more than the allotted 30W of power from the Power Source. The power use will be recorded through the entire competition attempt, allowing the judges to detect an average power use of greater than 30W.
Click on registration and you will find several links, including one to the rule book which contains the information you seek. Specifically, there's a "sandbox" 4m x 4m x 0.5m of regolith, which the robot most sit on top of place into the "collector" area which is adjacent to the sandbox. How far you have to go depends upon how much regolith your robot can "reach" and collect in the time allotted; at most you might have to travel 5m to get to the regolith you need. It's really not so much distance moved as it is speed of collection and total quantity collected.
I support Real ID in general, so I will go along with it. The most annoying part is that I currently have a state ID that doesn't expire, which makes it quite useful as a default form of ID that I don't have to worry about. Now, that ID is going to become unacceptable to many federal institutions in 2013, so I'm going to have to get a Real ID compliant one to replace it.
I see a lot of people arguing that because copyright laws have been extended so much, they are unjust. I believe that's a faulty argument. The vast majority if copyright violation we're seeing today on the Internet... video, audio, software... is of material that is usually no more than a few decades old, and often only a few weeks old. If you believe copyright is okay for 25 years, you shouldn't be downloading the latest bittorrent of your favorite TV show or cracked software package.
I agree copyright has problems, and I've certainly violated them myself. But you have to see it from the creator's point of view.
RICO was originally designed to deal with organized crime ala the Mafia. The problem is it has many times been abused to attack corporations who run afoul of the law. Many companies are completely unprepared for the realities of RICO because it's not something that would normally apply to them. RICO had a noble purpose, but the language of it is so broad, and supported by SCOTUS, that it's a danger to any company.
Here's a quick example. Let's suppose a small conservative town in Texas decides that something like FHM magazine is "obscene" and inappropriate for kids. They pass an ordinance saying so. The next day, the cops come in and close down a local 7-11 for selling FHM, takes 'em to court, and they're found guilty. Southland Corporation decides not to fight on free speech grounds and pays the fine or whatever. They make sure not to sell the magazine in that town anymore. Remember, SCOTUS says obscenity is defined by local community standards, so this is entirely legal.
Then a small town in, say, Oklahoma does the same thing to another 7-11. Ding! RICO kicks in. Suddenly, Southland is engaged in a racketeering pattern of behavior. The fact that the two violations were unintnetional or unrelated doesn't matter. Okay, so what's the big deal? The big deal is that under RICO, the entire assets of the Southland corporation can be seized. And sold. BEFORE TRIAL. WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE. Every 7-11 in America can literally cease operation overnight because two small towns in Bumfuck, Nowhere decided they didn't like a particular magazine. The only other alternative is that 7-11 would have to stop selling the magazine everywhere, because it can't take the risk of having a second violation that would qualify for RICO.
Anyone who thinks the PATRIOT ACT goes too far should really be far more worried about RICO. It can do far greater damage. There are parts of RICO that are probably a good thing; it certainly makes it easier to take down criminal organizations. But the law needs to be changed if we are going to preserve our freedoms.
1. Alexander the Great was forewarned. 2. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. 3. Four arms is an odd number of arms to have. 4. The only number that is both even and odd is infinity. 5. Therefore, Alexander the Great had an infinite numbers of arms!
I didn't realize a dyson sphere would be unstable, but you're right. As for a shell, I think the structural issues are not as bad as for a ring, but it's been a long time since we did the math in physics class...
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, you yourself cherry picked data -- Bush's college GPA -- in order to try to prove a point of Bush's lack of competence. Whether or not Bush is a bad President can be debated, but it's important that debate be on a rational basis. Either one's GPA is highly relevant or it's not.
What is at issue here is a basic human emotional response to believe and/or exagerrate everything negative about people or ideas we don't like, and to disbelieve and/or mitigate anything negative about people or ideas we do like. A consequence of the icreasing polarization of American politics has resulted in an inability for one side to say or admit anything positive about the other.
Kerry has to do with this in that he was the alternative to Bush and the assertion was made that implied that because Bush was a C-average student one would not expect him to be a good President. Given that Kerry was a worse student, one would not expect him to have made a better President, if grades are a determinant.
As to where the factoid came from, I don't recall, but it's probably the article you refer to. I don't rememebr the part about Kerry having improved more, but I do remember some debate over whether or not Kerry had more difficult classes. In any case, I would reject the notion that better grades in latter years means one is more "teachable" -- Kerry may simply have studied more, or had better instructors. I know many of the Freshman and Sophmore classes in universities are quite large and have some of the worst instructors. There are even some classes known for "weeding out" students. When I took modern physics I got a B even while I was getting Cs and Ds in courses that were supposed prerequisites for it.
Bottom line is: college grades are overrated. But if one believes in them so much as to want to bash Bush for a C-average, they have to also bash Kerry for the same average or be exposed as a hypocrite.
You didn't really answer my question. It seems *obvious* two electrons that are put into identical quantum states via experiment nevertheless arrived at that state via different paths. Again, we may not be able to tell which came from which world line, but in the hyperdimensional sense they would not be identical.
Given that Kerry was also a C-average student (in fact, his grades were slightly worse), I'm not sure the alternative would have been better.
Wouldn't two particles in the same quantum state still have different world lines? So they wouldn't be identical, even if we couldn't tell which came from which line.
What you're basically describing is a what is known as a "hidden variable" theory. That is, you figure that it's not just that the two particles are correlated -- one always the opposite color of the other -- but rather that, when the particles are created, one is "really" blue and one is "really" white, and we just don't know which is which until we measure one of them.
Unfortunately, it turns out that this seemingly innocent picture DOES NOT DESCRIBE REALITY when it comes to subatomic particles. The actual why is difficult to explain without math, but basically physicists can construct experiments that, if the particles realy had one "color" (your hypothetical quantity) or the other before measurement, we can run them through an apparatus and make them behave in a certain way. It turns out that, in fact, if particles actually had one "color" or the other, the result would be one way, but the experiment gets a different result. Experiments confirm that, in fact, particles have an indeterminate "color", a true mixture (called a superposition) of "colors", until the appropriate measurement is made.
Note that there is quantum property called color that's unrelated here, so your use of the word can be confusing. You might want to use the word spin in the future, since spin works in exactly the way described above.
Anyway, what all this means physicists still debate. This is why you see talk of things like multiple universes, higher dimensions, non-local hidden variables, causality violation, etc. These are all attempts to explain in understandable terms what seems to be a very inexplicable universe.
I love all the liberals who are now trying to defend their anti-Capitalist hero Chavez on this point by claiming that since the news station was involved in trying to oust Chavez before, Chavez is justified. But they only think that because they think Chavez is a priori a good leader. If it was a tv station that was trying to oust a leader they didn't like -- say, impleach Bush -- they'd be all for it and declare any pull of the license as retaliatory and censorship. Come on, people, stand up for your principles for a change!
Challenger certainly was the fault of "rushing things". This was back when NASA was still thinking they could launch as many as 12 flights a year, and there was a lot of pressure schedule to fill commercial launch contracts as well as space science. The desire to launch on time was certainly a major factor in the decision to launch Challenger when they did. While a Challenger-style loss would probably have happened eventually, chances are it would not have happened on that particular flight.
As far as Columbia, that was more of a case of ignoring a problem that many people didn't think was a big problem and didn't really have an answer for if it turned out it WAS a big problem, so it was better out of sight and out of mind.
In both cases, long-term stand-downs were required to fix the problems. Even if NASA had recognized and tried to fix the problems in advance, it is likely they would have kept flying with the old designs until the new ones were ready. So in that sense, schedule pressure would have played a factor in increasing the risk of a failure of both types.
Actually, 3 planets rotate "backwards" - Venus, Uranus, and Pluto. Or 2 if you don't count Pluto. Or, if you flip north and south, then all of the planets except those 3 rotate backwards, along with the sun. It's all a matter of perspective.
What you say is certainly a core tenant of many Christian denominations, but not all. Whether or not there is original sin, whether or not divine grace is given or earned, the extent to which goood works can "get you in" to Heaven are all points of dispute and debate between different sects.
Do otherwise "good" people who generally do the "right" thing (in other words, they commit rare and seemingly minor sins, without malice or evil), but don't believe in Christ, still get into Heaven? If you think so, fine, but many Christians say no, which actually undermines the logic of Pascal's Wager: if I'm only following Christian teaching because I'm heding my bets in case God exists, God would see right through that that I'm not a true believer, and thus it wouldn't earn me anything. So I'd have to really *believe* in order to reap the benefits, in which case, I don't need the logic of Pascal's Wager to believe.
Now, another interesting argument is that "acting" Christian is necessary first in order to allow for the possibility of *true* belief, so by assuming the trappings you open your heart to the real thing. Something like method acting evoking real emotion, I suppose.
Yes. Although I doubt the skull absorbing it is the problem; rather, thinner skulls would absorb *less* radiation and allow more *through* to the soft tissues.
Yes, it's quite similar.
Energy falls with the square of the distance. Yes, they're more powerful, but they also cover a much larger range. So if you were standing right next to one, it's probably stronger than your typical wifi, but at normal range, they're probably more compareable in strength.
Yes.
Basically, this is something that seems like it could be a problem, but there's no evidence of it.
From the simulation, I found the biggest difficulty in the frontal shot is not hitting the driver of the limo. But then, that's not such a bad thing, so long as it's a kill shot and you can get your next shots off before they can react. The car either slows or stops, so you're in good shape. But if you miss, then the driver could react and speed up. Still, running all the odds, it seems you're betting off shooting before the turn than after.
I've played through JFK Reloaded many times. If you fire at the times Oswald supposedly fired, you can pretty reasonably replicate the shots -- I scored a neck shot that went into Connelly and even the head shot. But to get the exact set of injuries is nearly impossible. It's very difficult to get a shot off that doesn't hit one of the SS agents.
The other thing that gets me is, as others have pointed out, why he didn't just shoot as the car was moving towards him up the plaza. It's a much easier short; after the turn, not only do you have the car moving left and away, but you've also got the tree obscuring the shot. The limo does slow down helpfully, but I don't know why I'd do the assassination that way.
I believe in a second shooter.
Whether mind is physical or not is, if you pardon the term, immaterial. It's not an obvious premise that all physical processes are necessarily deterministic or random, or a mixture of the two. The idea is that choice acts in an independent, but still non-random, way.
Of course, one of the problems of materialism is that this notion of independent, non-deterministic action arising from physical substance seems rather unlikely and at odds with all other known physical phenomena. And on the other hand, for those materialists who embrace quantum mechanics, the idea of randomness underlying processes is rather problematic.
Perhaps the Many-Worlds interpretation provides us with an out. If all possibilities occur in multiple universe, then the materialist can still say these are deterministic, in a sense that encompasses the random nature of QM. But perhaps free will comes into play in the *choice* of which universe you or I experience. The problem that arises then is what to do with all these people in other universes, or the fact that your choice may lead you to one universe and I another. Are the vast majority of these people "soul-less", in that they don't truly experience and choose the way "I" do? Or are new indetities constantly being created, in which case, in what sense do "I" actually "choose" a universe, if in fact the "I" that is experiencing might simply have just now come into existance based on the non-choice of another "I"?
These sorts of questions of identity seem to be ultimately unresolvable. But I still cling to the classic notion of Free Will, as I see rather little point in existing in a universe that is either deterministic or purely random. Perhaps it is my crutch of "faith" in an otherwise fairly rational world-view.
This is the exact same argument that the person in article makes, and one which I find totally wrong. It's a fallacy of the false choice: that it it either has to be deterministic or it has to be random. We talked this in Metaphysis in college, and it's simply not true. Many free will advocates will tell you that the concept of choice can be based on neither.
To put it in terms you use, it's not random. It is, as you say, "based on something", but that something is NOT deterministic. Nor is it random. It's CHOICE. Now, pure determinists simply can't wrap their head around this. They think anything you would WANT to do must be based on something deterministic, and the prospect of being governed by truly random processes is too terrifying to accept. So this either/or argument is certainly not new, but it's used almost entirely by determinists. There are very few "randomists". The vast majority of remaining free will philosophers believe in a third way that is neither. They believe in choice.
... only the best of us.
The power is supplied by an external connector. From the rules:
Click on registration and you will find several links, including one to the rule book which contains the information you seek. Specifically, there's a "sandbox" 4m x 4m x 0.5m of regolith, which the robot most sit on top of place into the "collector" area which is adjacent to the sandbox. How far you have to go depends upon how much regolith your robot can "reach" and collect in the time allotted; at most you might have to travel 5m to get to the regolith you need. It's really not so much distance moved as it is speed of collection and total quantity collected.
Oh, and I meant to add, Real ID cards expire after no more than 8 years, so this will become an annoying chore.
I support Real ID in general, so I will go along with it. The most annoying part is that I currently have a state ID that doesn't expire, which makes it quite useful as a default form of ID that I don't have to worry about. Now, that ID is going to become unacceptable to many federal institutions in 2013, so I'm going to have to get a Real ID compliant one to replace it.
I am a free man!
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered.
My life is my own.
I see a lot of people arguing that because copyright laws have been extended so much, they are unjust. I believe that's a faulty argument. The vast majority if copyright violation we're seeing today on the Internet... video, audio, software... is of material that is usually no more than a few decades old, and often only a few weeks old. If you believe copyright is okay for 25 years, you shouldn't be downloading the latest bittorrent of your favorite TV show or cracked software package.
I agree copyright has problems, and I've certainly violated them myself. But you have to see it from the creator's point of view.
RICO was originally designed to deal with organized crime ala the Mafia. The problem is it has many times been abused to attack corporations who run afoul of the law. Many companies are completely unprepared for the realities of RICO because it's not something that would normally apply to them. RICO had a noble purpose, but the language of it is so broad, and supported by SCOTUS, that it's a danger to any company.
Here's a quick example. Let's suppose a small conservative town in Texas decides that something like FHM magazine is "obscene" and inappropriate for kids. They pass an ordinance saying so. The next day, the cops come in and close down a local 7-11 for selling FHM, takes 'em to court, and they're found guilty. Southland Corporation decides not to fight on free speech grounds and pays the fine or whatever. They make sure not to sell the magazine in that town anymore. Remember, SCOTUS says obscenity is defined by local community standards, so this is entirely legal.
Then a small town in, say, Oklahoma does the same thing to another 7-11. Ding! RICO kicks in. Suddenly, Southland is engaged in a racketeering pattern of behavior. The fact that the two violations were unintnetional or unrelated doesn't matter. Okay, so what's the big deal? The big deal is that under RICO, the entire assets of the Southland corporation can be seized. And sold. BEFORE TRIAL. WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE. Every 7-11 in America can literally cease operation overnight because two small towns in Bumfuck, Nowhere decided they didn't like a particular magazine. The only other alternative is that 7-11 would have to stop selling the magazine everywhere, because it can't take the risk of having a second violation that would qualify for RICO.
Anyone who thinks the PATRIOT ACT goes too far should really be far more worried about RICO. It can do far greater damage. There are parts of RICO that are probably a good thing; it certainly makes it easier to take down criminal organizations. But the law needs to be changed if we are going to preserve our freedoms.
Actually, the way I heard it in college:
1. Alexander the Great was forewarned.
2. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
3. Four arms is an odd number of arms to have.
4. The only number that is both even and odd is infinity.
5. Therefore, Alexander the Great had an infinite numbers of arms!
I didn't realize a dyson sphere would be unstable, but you're right. As for a shell, I think the structural issues are not as bad as for a ring, but it's been a long time since we did the math in physics class...