How do you know that bacteria or spore were not amongst the rock that formed the
earth? Some types of life are remarkably tough, living deep within the earth's crust or within hot sulfer springs. It's not a great leap to hypothesize that some types of life can survive, perhaps in hibernation, in outer space. Our solar system is not first generation. It's made up of the remnants of exploded stars and perhaps planets that contained life.
An important part of science is something called "critical thinking", which means, in part, that we don't take things for granted and we don't jump to conclusions. It means we admit that our knowledge of what happened billions of years ago might be somewhat tentative.
You might try a little critical thinking some time. Moron.
1. There was a point when there was no life on Earth.
I'll concede point 2, but just just how is point 1 an established fact?
It seems a reasonable assumption, particularly if the entire earth was
once molten (was it?), but a reasonable assumption, not a definite fact,
it must remain.
My buddy Warren B. tells me (okay, he says in his speeches and interviews) that he generally avoids tech stocks because (1) he doesn't understand them well enough, and (2) any commercial advantage a tech stock might have is usually short lived.
This practise of giving earnings guidance is a game that has little or
no benefit for the long term shareholder. It only benefits analysts with fast reactions and access to after-hours markets. Some of the best companies in the U.S. (many have Warren Buffet on the board of directors) now no longer give guidance and I approve of this.
The long term investor is quite content to wait till the quarter is actually over before finding out how well the company did.
Having said that, Google's price is still too high.
Here are four reasons. I am sure others can add to this list.
Except maybe for a few large country like the U.S.,
it's impossible for one country to produce all the goods it needs.
Is Belgium supposed to produce all of its own steel, integrated
circuits, software, microwaves, and wheat? The country is just not big
enough to support 100,000 different industries.
Even if a country could produce all of its goods, it would
not be able to do it efficiently. To be efficient, you must
specialize in what you do well, and so achieve economies of scale.
If the U.S. decided to shut its borders and do all of its own
manufacturing, the standard of living might halve or worse.
Free trade adds hugely to our economic well being.
Countries don't have all the raw materials they need. The U.S.
needs Canada for nickel, Canada needs the U.S. for oranges.
Japan has very few raw materials.
And then there's freedom. If people in Vancouver and Seattle
want to do business together, what moral right do governments have to
tell them that they can't?
U.S. labour standards (especially the level of minimum wage), are a direct result of U.S. wealth. To demand that developing countries live up to U.S. labour standards is both completely unworkable and rather arrogant.
The same argument could be made about trade. After all, the foreign goods Americans are buying are not manufactured under the same labour laws as the U.S.
So you would deny developing nations both jobs and trade with the U.S. If all modern nations took that attitude, the developing nations would be doomed to near-eternal poverty. Until their labour laws are up to U.S. standards, they can't do business with the U.S. And until they can do business with the U.S., they can't generate the wealth to improve their labour standards.
I have serious questions about "corporate responsibility". The purpose of a company is to generate wealth - principally for the shareholders, but incidentally for employees, customers, and all of society. Asking them to spend a lot of time and money on charity is hypocritical and a distraction.
We don't ask lawn mowers to wash the dishes. We don't ask televisions to cook the meals. We shouldn't ask companies to carry out charitable works - that should be the domain and the prerogative of the private citizen.
When you see the CEO seemingly spending more time supporting good causes than running the company, it's time to cash out.
Anyone that talks about increasing efficiency to over 100% doesn't know the meaning of the word "efficiency" and can safely be ignored. It's a sure sign of the incompetent.
When I was a math grad working on my thesis, I often worked hard into the
night on some tricky problem. Next morning when I woke up I would just lie in
bed mulling it over.
Remarkably often the solution to the problem, or at least a fresh approach
for tackling it, would occur to me after only a few minutes.
This after hours of getting no where the night before. Not that the work
was wasted - it was probably a necessary precursor.
How soon people forget. At one time Bill Gates was absolutely adored by the basement suite crowd. He was King of the Geeks. And the release of one of their operating systems (was it Windows NT? I disremember) nearly caused rioting in the streets.
In the beginning was IBM, and everyone thought it was the sexiest thing around. But then they noticed that IBM had many practises that seemed monopolistic, and the Justice Department took notice, and people came to resent IBM.
Then along came Microsoft, and everyone thought it was the sexiest thing around. People believed in Microsoft. But in time they came to resent its dominance, and the Justice Department took notice, and now many people hate
Microsoft with a passion.
And then along came Google, and... well you get the story.
The definition of the scientific method has alway been problematic. Certainly your definition is far too narrow. No one has insisted that all observations be repeatable.
Because of the problems with defining a "scientific method", the most common definition of a hypothesis being scientific is whether it is falsifiable. That is, if it's false, then there must be a way, in principle, of showing that it is so through observation.
But even this definition of "scientific", due to Karl Popper, has come under much criticism. The definition of "scientific" has never been satisfactorily settled, but your definition is totally bogus, and seems driven by the conclusion you wish to arrive at.
You seem to have forgotten the scientific method. First, you make a hypothesis, then you make experiments to test it. Once it has been teseted, it can become a theory. This is regardless of whether you are scientist investigating biology, astronomy or anything else. If you can test it you can only talk about a hypothesis.
That's a phoney baloney definition of the scientific method which excludes, as I said before, astronomy or any science which studies what has happened in the past.
Interesting. To explain the origins of life you revert to creationism?
No, it's a simple statement of fact. Evolutionary theory does not normally include the origins of life. That you seem unaware of this fact does not speak well for your knowledge of the science.
But since you bring it up, hypothesizing (and even experimenting in the laboratory) about the origins of life can be perfectly scientific, provided that it is grounded in observation (e.g., studying fossils, DNA, meteorites, etc). It's probably doomed, alas, to being a highly speculative branch of science.
I'm only saying that if theory involves one-time events, then it is not testable.
Nonsense. A comet crashing into Jupitor is, at least in our life time, a one-time event. You're saying that the study of this is not scientific?
You're like Humpty Dumpty, redefining words to suit your arguments.
You seem to confuse testability with repeatability. Testability here is the ability for observation to support or refute a theory, not the ability to reproduce experiments in a laboratory. That is to say, a proper scientific hypothesis must be answerable to the facts. Repeatability is not, however, a requirement of all the sciences.
By your argument, astronomy and the rest of biology are not science either. And yet patently they are.
Darwin did not therorize about the origins of life, only the origin of species. The origins of life is not normally considered part of evolutionary theory.
Regarding the other two examples, evolutionly theory does not claim to be able to explain how every evolutionary occurence throughout time took place in minute detail. You state that it is nonscientific because we have an incomplete understanding of what happened two billion years ago? Ridiculous.
When I write a job ad, I distinguish between what is required and what is
an asset (e.g., "Shell scripting, Motif, and Snobol experience are all assets,
but not required.").
For the applicant we are saying "let us know if you have these things, but still
apply if you don't."
The idea is that the more accurately the applicants understands the
requirements, the more effective they can be at communicating their
suitability.
I recommend this approach to everyone. Oh, and don't let human resources write, or even stongly edit, your ads for you.
I'm not saying they're morons, you understand (heaven's no), but they'll put in crap like "We are looking for a self-motivated team player
with excellent communication skills seeking a challenging position in a
dynamic, cutting-edge company". Ack.
Doubling your money in five years is about a 15% annual
compounded return (1.15 ^ 5 ~ 2). After subtracting
inflation that's maybe a 12% annual return. Adding in dividends gives maybe 13% or 14%.
There may be some hot shots that say different, but I think a 13% annual return above inflation is excellent.
Taxes have not been accounted for, but my investments are mostly within a retirement account where taxes are not due until you withdraw from the account, which in my case won't be for many years.
I think the best way to add to my local community is to make myself rich and spend a lot of money. Kidding aside, I don't invest for altruistic reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. You're an asshole.
I called you a moron for the rudeness and arrogance of your original post. If that's typical of your responses, then you'd better get used to it.
How do you know that bacteria or spore were not amongst the rock that formed the earth? Some types of life are remarkably tough, living deep within the earth's crust or within hot sulfer springs. It's not a great leap to hypothesize that some types of life can survive, perhaps in hibernation, in outer space. Our solar system is not first generation. It's made up of the remnants of exploded stars and perhaps planets that contained life.
An important part of science is something called "critical thinking", which means, in part, that we don't take things for granted and we don't jump to conclusions. It means we admit that our knowledge of what happened billions of years ago might be somewhat tentative.
You might try a little critical thinking some time. Moron.
I'll concede point 2, but just just how is point 1 an established fact? It seems a reasonable assumption, particularly if the entire earth was once molten (was it?), but a reasonable assumption, not a definite fact, it must remain.
My buddy Warren B. tells me (okay, he says in his speeches and interviews) that he generally avoids tech stocks because (1) he doesn't understand them well enough, and (2) any commercial advantage a tech stock might have is usually short lived.
The long term investor is quite content to wait till the quarter is actually over before finding out how well the company did.
Having said that, Google's price is still too high.
Except maybe for a few large country like the U.S., it's impossible for one country to produce all the goods it needs. Is Belgium supposed to produce all of its own steel, integrated circuits, software, microwaves, and wheat? The country is just not big enough to support 100,000 different industries.
Even if a country could produce all of its goods, it would not be able to do it efficiently. To be efficient, you must specialize in what you do well, and so achieve economies of scale. If the U.S. decided to shut its borders and do all of its own manufacturing, the standard of living might halve or worse. Free trade adds hugely to our economic well being.
Countries don't have all the raw materials they need. The U.S. needs Canada for nickel, Canada needs the U.S. for oranges. Japan has very few raw materials.
And then there's freedom. If people in Vancouver and Seattle want to do business together, what moral right do governments have to tell them that they can't?
U.S. labour standards (especially the level of minimum wage), are a direct result of U.S. wealth. To demand that developing countries live up to U.S. labour standards is both completely unworkable and rather arrogant.
So you would deny developing nations both jobs and trade with the U.S. If all modern nations took that attitude, the developing nations would be doomed to near-eternal poverty. Until their labour laws are up to U.S. standards, they can't do business with the U.S. And until they can do business with the U.S., they can't generate the wealth to improve their labour standards.
That doesn't seem "good" or "right" to me.
We don't ask lawn mowers to wash the dishes. We don't ask televisions to cook the meals. We shouldn't ask companies to carry out charitable works - that should be the domain and the prerogative of the private citizen.
When you see the CEO seemingly spending more time supporting good causes than running the company, it's time to cash out.
Anyone that talks about increasing efficiency to over 100% doesn't know the meaning of the word "efficiency" and can safely be ignored. It's a sure sign of the incompetent.
I think it's more than the calming affect. I suspect thinking is like cooking. Sometimes you just have to put it on the back burner and wait.
Remarkably often the solution to the problem, or at least a fresh approach for tackling it, would occur to me after only a few minutes.
This after hours of getting no where the night before. Not that the work was wasted - it was probably a necessary precursor.
Sleep definitely reorders your brain.
Always check your links!
How about a swimming lesson in the Northwest Territories? This can be equally effective..
How soon people forget. At one time Bill Gates was absolutely adored by the basement suite crowd. He was King of the Geeks. And the release of one of their operating systems (was it Windows NT? I disremember) nearly caused rioting in the streets.
Then along came Microsoft, and everyone thought it was the sexiest thing around. People believed in Microsoft. But in time they came to resent its dominance, and the Justice Department took notice, and now many people hate Microsoft with a passion.
And then along came Google, and ... well you get the story.
Astronomy and geology are not patently scientific? You're saying they are not?
Because of the problems with defining a "scientific method", the most common definition of a hypothesis being scientific is whether it is falsifiable. That is, if it's false, then there must be a way, in principle, of showing that it is so through observation.
But even this definition of "scientific", due to Karl Popper, has come under much criticism. The definition of "scientific" has never been satisfactorily settled, but your definition is totally bogus, and seems driven by the conclusion you wish to arrive at.
That's a phoney baloney definition of the scientific method which excludes, as I said before, astronomy or any science which studies what has happened in the past.
No, it's a simple statement of fact. Evolutionary theory does not normally include the origins of life. That you seem unaware of this fact does not speak well for your knowledge of the science.
But since you bring it up, hypothesizing (and even experimenting in the laboratory) about the origins of life can be perfectly scientific, provided that it is grounded in observation (e.g., studying fossils, DNA, meteorites, etc). It's probably doomed, alas, to being a highly speculative branch of science.
Nonsense. A comet crashing into Jupitor is, at least in our life time, a one-time event. You're saying that the study of this is not scientific?You're like Humpty Dumpty, redefining words to suit your arguments.
You seem to confuse testability with repeatability. Testability here is the ability for observation to support or refute a theory, not the ability to reproduce experiments in a laboratory. That is to say, a proper scientific hypothesis must be answerable to the facts. Repeatability is not, however, a requirement of all the sciences.
By your argument, astronomy and the rest of biology are not science either. And yet patently they are.
Darwin did not therorize about the origins of life, only the origin of species. The origins of life is not normally considered part of evolutionary theory.
Regarding the other two examples, evolutionly theory does not claim to be able to explain how every evolutionary occurence throughout time took place in minute detail. You state that it is nonscientific because we have an incomplete understanding of what happened two billion years ago? Ridiculous.
And if anyone asks, I'm 34. No, really.
For the applicant we are saying "let us know if you have these things, but still apply if you don't."
The idea is that the more accurately the applicants understands the requirements, the more effective they can be at communicating their suitability.
I recommend this approach to everyone. Oh, and don't let human resources write, or even stongly edit, your ads for you. I'm not saying they're morons, you understand (heaven's no), but they'll put in crap like "We are looking for a self-motivated team player with excellent communication skills seeking a challenging position in a dynamic, cutting-edge company". Ack.
There may be some hot shots that say different, but I think a 13% annual return above inflation is excellent.
Taxes have not been accounted for, but my investments are mostly within a retirement account where taxes are not due until you withdraw from the account, which in my case won't be for many years.
I think the best way to add to my local community is to make myself rich and spend a lot of money. Kidding aside, I don't invest for altruistic reasons.