"Every scientific discovery that was ever shown to be true or false because of evidence is evidence that nothing should be believed without evidence."
those are all cases where it's good to believe
(or disbelieve) *with* evidence (or counter-evidence). How does that show that one
should never believe *without* evidence? I'm
not denying that evidence supports belief! Heaven forbid. I'm looking for the evidence that
one should **never** believe without evidence. And I'm not seeing any. Obviously, if every belief requires evidence then you have an infinite regress. Belief A requires evidence
B, belief B requires evidence C, and so on.
It just won't work! (unless you think that
A can be evidence for B and B can be evidence
for A, which I sincerely hope not)
I think you have fallen into paradox.
How can you demonstrate
that nothing should be believed which
cannot be demonstrated? Where's your
demonstration or scientific proof of
your own principle?
if we take the set of real numbers (R) and
the set of integers (N) we note that
they cannot be put in 1 to 1 correspodence
and N is a proper subset of R. I'd say
that gives us pretty good grounds for
saying there are more real numbers than
integers, wouldn't you?
re: 861 -- that's a nice use of flash;
but why can't the 861 people find somebody
willing to go to court about their
taxable income -- I am sure funding could
be found (I am not an American so the
whole business seems bizarre in the extreme
to me.)
could not the same be said about the
infamous buggy-whip makers?
if the market for films disappears then
so will the jobs (there is no right to
keep making money from a particular form
of revenue source)
the question is whether the non-commercial
sharing of information (music, text or
video) should be illegal because of
copyright laws
a sub-question is what form should copyright
take on such material in the first place.
I myself favour a one or two year period
of initial copyright with renewals possible
for a significant fee (money collected to go
to lending libraries:) )
this is just what america needs. NASA isn't
really up to designing new spacecraft. So
pony up the money and let the russians build
this thing and america gets to be first in
line to fly it. You can pay for it with
action movies and Brittany Spears' videos
(something america, for the moment, leads
the world at).
"So, you're saying that the university (i.e. the state) should risk taxpayer's money by setting up a manufacturing facility for this product? Or that noone should ever develop it? Or that professors should never do practical research?"
None of the above. The research is public and
should be freely available to anybody. If somebody wants to make a product and sell it, fine. No patent protection on publically funded
research.
I think companies could make money this way if
their product is good enough and, of course,
they can sell "support" (sound familiar).
Maybe this is great work, but it bothers
me that the professor can spin off a company
to market this product which the university
has patented.
Bear in mind that the good professor was
supported by public money to do this
research and the Univ. of Wisconsin similarly
is state funded.
It seems just plain obvious to me that this
research belongs to those who paid for it --
the public.
The idea that a university takes public
money to use as venture capital with intent
to profit is repulsive. Of course, it happens
all the time in those branches of academe
which connect to marketable products. But
that doesn't make it right.
you are not reading the bible metaphorically
enough. When it speaks of God creating
the archetypal Adam and Eve that is metaphor
for the creation of baryons and leptons.
Original sin is simply a metaphorical way
to talk abou the primordial disparity between
matter and anti-matter with which the universe
has been stuck since early after its inception.
The Jesus story is a metaphorical reference
to the time when electrons coupled with matter,
and the universe became clear to light.
no, it means that they abused the dmca
and it was wrong to do that... but you knew
that already didn't you? There is a place
for grammar pedants, but I'm not sure it's/.
OP was using European convention of the
dot (.) instead of comma (,) for marking
thousands. However, the figure of a half
life of 44,000 years is still
wrong. The isotopes of Pu vary in half
life from about 4 nanoseconds (Pu 240a) to
80 million years (Pu 244). Pu 244 is
obviously not very dangerous in small
quantities:) None of them seem close to
44,000 years.
sigh... where's your data from; I call
bullshit on the basis of
this:
1. Do solar cells produce more energy than is used during their manufacture?
Yes. The amount of time it takes for a technology to produce more energy than was used in their manufacture is called the energy payback time. Solar cells have an energy payback time ranging from a few months to 6 years, depending on the type of materials, the type of solar cell and where it is used. Solar cells have warranties well in excess of these numbers, typically 20 years. The origin of the popular myth that solar cells do not produce enough energy in their lifetime to recover the energy in making them is unknown, as every published study has shown that solar cells produce more energy in their lifetime than the energy used in production.
I wonder if/. should have a rule: no fact
claims without reasonable references (I guess
it might get pretty "thin" here though)
the anik F2 satellite was launched in
July with the promise of providing
internet services to all of rural (or
otherwise underserviced) Canada. It's
a Ka band sat.
but my question is, does anyone know about
what internet connection services it
will provide? At what cost? And, most
important, when will it be available?
this article is remarkably similar
in many respects to the recent
one
of Joe Barr at linuxworld. But he makes
a more linuxy point -- linux cannot/should
not compete against the non-existent figment
of microsoft's imagination.
"Kick his ass, then send him to some country where they like pseudoscience..."
Let's see... that would be... America,
where almost half the population believe
in UFO abductions and more than 90%
believe in something they call "God",
which is actually less likely than the
thing about the aliens !
Slashdot Mirror
"Every scientific discovery that was ever shown to be true or false because of evidence is evidence that nothing should be believed without evidence."
those are all cases where it's good to believe (or disbelieve) *with* evidence (or counter-evidence). How does that show that one should never believe *without* evidence? I'm not denying that evidence supports belief! Heaven forbid. I'm looking for the evidence that one should **never** believe without evidence. And I'm not seeing any. Obviously, if every belief requires evidence then you have an infinite regress. Belief A requires evidence B, belief B requires evidence C, and so on. It just won't work! (unless you think that A can be evidence for B and B can be evidence for A, which I sincerely hope not)
Where is your evidence for the claim that nothing should be believed without evidence?
Here's a fact you evidently believe in:
"nothing should be believed without evidence"
Now, where is the evidence for this supposed fact? What evidence can you provide? What scientific test will support this "fact"?
Perhaps it would be better to focus on the evidence *against* the existence of God, of which there is plenty.
I think you have fallen into paradox. How can you demonstrate that nothing should be believed which cannot be demonstrated? Where's your demonstration or scientific proof of your own principle?
if we take the set of real numbers (R) and the set of integers (N) we note that they cannot be put in 1 to 1 correspodence and N is a proper subset of R. I'd say that gives us pretty good grounds for saying there are more real numbers than integers, wouldn't you?
re: 861 -- that's a nice use of flash; but why can't the 861 people find somebody willing to go to court about their taxable income -- I am sure funding could be found (I am not an American so the whole business seems bizarre in the extreme to me.)
could not the same be said about the infamous buggy-whip makers?
:) )
if the market for films disappears then so will the jobs (there is no right to keep making money from a particular form of revenue source)
the question is whether the non-commercial sharing of information (music, text or video) should be illegal because of copyright laws
a sub-question is what form should copyright take on such material in the first place. I myself favour a one or two year period of initial copyright with renewals possible for a significant fee (money collected to go to lending libraries
Koyaanisqatsi had my favorite one-word film review (can't remember what paper):
diddlysqatsi
this is just what america needs. NASA isn't really up to designing new spacecraft. So pony up the money and let the russians build this thing and america gets to be first in line to fly it. You can pay for it with action movies and Brittany Spears' videos (something america, for the moment, leads the world at).
"So, you're saying that the university (i.e. the state) should risk taxpayer's money by setting up a manufacturing facility for this product? Or that noone should ever develop it? Or that professors should never do practical research?"
None of the above. The research is public and should be freely available to anybody. If somebody wants to make a product and sell it, fine. No patent protection on publically funded research.
I think companies could make money this way if their product is good enough and, of course, they can sell "support" (sound familiar).
Maybe this is great work, but it bothers me that the professor can spin off a company to market this product which the university has patented.
Bear in mind that the good professor was supported by public money to do this research and the Univ. of Wisconsin similarly is state funded.
It seems just plain obvious to me that this research belongs to those who paid for it -- the public.
The idea that a university takes public money to use as venture capital with intent to profit is repulsive. Of course, it happens all the time in those branches of academe which connect to marketable products. But that doesn't make it right.
creative muvo nomad -- flash based mp3 player -- is just a usb-storage device. It works perfectly with linux, except for firmware upgrades
you are not reading the bible metaphorically enough. When it speaks of God creating the archetypal Adam and Eve that is metaphor for the creation of baryons and leptons.
:)
Original sin is simply a metaphorical way to talk abou the primordial disparity between matter and anti-matter with which the universe has been stuck since early after its inception.
The Jesus story is a metaphorical reference to the time when electrons coupled with matter, and the universe became clear to light.
I think the bible is amazing
already state of the art recycling system see for example here.
Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project: The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.
one comment: $85,000.00 for the model that *might* ship this year :(
ddr400 = pc-3200 pc-2700 = ddr333
you seem a little slow; you've just again *stated* that groklaw censors; I think the op was asking for evidence besides your mere words
no, it means that they abused the dmca and it was wrong to do that ... but you knew
that already didn't you? There is a place
for grammar pedants, but I'm not sure it's /.
OP was using European convention of the dot (.) instead of comma (,) for marking thousands. However, the figure of a half life of 44,000 years is still wrong. The isotopes of Pu vary in half life from about 4 nanoseconds (Pu 240a) to 80 million years (Pu 244). Pu 244 is obviously not very dangerous in small quantities :) None of them seem close to
44,000 years.
sigh ... where's your data from; I call
bullshit on the basis of
this:
/. should have a rule: no fact
claims without reasonable references (I guess
it might get pretty "thin" here though)
1. Do solar cells produce more energy than is used during their manufacture?
Yes. The amount of time it takes for a technology to produce more energy than was used in their manufacture is called the energy payback time. Solar cells have an energy payback time ranging from a few months to 6 years, depending on the type of materials, the type of solar cell and where it is used. Solar cells have warranties well in excess of these numbers, typically 20 years. The origin of the popular myth that solar cells do not produce enough energy in their lifetime to recover the energy in making them is unknown, as every published study has shown that solar cells produce more energy in their lifetime than the energy used in production.
I wonder if
so far as I can tell, not true of Clinton
Dole race (just a casual googling tells me
this). Where do you get your data from?
the anik F2 satellite was launched in July with the promise of providing internet services to all of rural (or otherwise underserviced) Canada. It's a Ka band sat.
but my question is, does anyone know about what internet connection services it will provide? At what cost? And, most important, when will it be available?
this article is remarkably similar in many respects to the recent one of Joe Barr at linuxworld. But he makes a more linuxy point -- linux cannot/should not compete against the non-existent figment of microsoft's imagination.
> like lightning from a clear sky as C. S. Lewis said of Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' when it appeared in the literary landscape in 1954 !
"Kick his ass, then send him to some country where they like pseudoscience ..."
... that would be ... America,
where almost half the population believe
in UFO abductions and more than 90%
believe in something they call "God",
which is actually less likely than the
thing about the aliens !
Let's see