I'm not entirely sure where your stance is on the subject.
In any case, here's a little discussion for you.
1) The Big Bang hypothesis is simply a logical extrapolation of the observed universe. Currently, the best measurements show that everything cosmological is moving away from everything else (i.e., galaxies). Logically, if you run that in reverse, everything gets closer and closer to everything else. Using the observed deceleration and mass estimates, one can calculate a time at which all of the matter in the universe was at a single spot. That time and those circumstances are where our current models break down, and scientists are willing to say "we don't know". Being unsatisfied with that answer, they will conjecture and hypothesize, but they WILL NOT claim to know for certain.
2) Extra dimensions are used to help the mathematics work. Wormholes are mathematical conjectures. These ideas and more are brought into popular culture by SciFi authors, where they are romanticized and used as plot devices. The author's IMAGINATION and your consumption is where these ideas become supernatural. The mathematical definition of a wormhole and your ideas of a wormhole are wholly disparate.
3) Newtonian physics does not work best for anything. What happens is that the relitavistic effects become so minute that you can ignore them (especially because they get overshadowed by specifics that can only be modeled statistically). So, Newtonian physics work WELL ENOUGH for pretty much everything we do, but Einstein's will still give you a more accurate number.
4) Science is perfectly open to new ideas, assuming that they are testable. You can even make up entirely new math if you need to, as long as it explains known phenomena as well or better than current models. The Einstein example is a great one. (Are wormholes testable? Not as far as I know. But, the hypothesis sits upon a great deal of math that has worked great so far, and that gives the idea credibility. It is not simply a conjecture.) A question you should seriously be asking yourself is how long it took the church to admit that sunlight was not perfectly white and how open they are to new ideas. Which institution, science or religion, looks for ways in which to improve its understanding, and which opposes new ideas and escalates minutia to jihad importance?
Given your misunderstanding of the subject matter, it is no wonder that you believe science has an element of faith and theology. It seems to me that you are confusing science fiction with science. I would suggest learning to fit your mind and ideas to the world rather than the other way around, and I can guarantee that you won't be taught that at church.
The best, of course, is hearing that sentiment shortly after they profess to be certain about any of God's feelings or ideas (e.g., abortion, to pick a hot topic). It's always been the hight of hypocrisy to me, and the fact that they don't see it really lowers the stock of humanity in my eyes.
That's easy: WE DON'T KNOW. Sure, there are some hypotheses. But, as of yet, they are untestable. So, we simply don't know and science isn't going to supply an answer simply to quell the discomfort of acknowledging that we don't know everything.
And that is the crux of the clash between religion and science. Science only accepts what can be proven (while allowing for the submittal and discussion of a multitude of theories). Some religions are happy to accept as fact certain speculations or other unverifiable claims. The clash happens when someone with an unverifiable belief (often religion based) insists that a hypothesis be treated with equal scientific respect as a Law or Theory.
Follow that road and you find yourself listening to certain administrations and corporations stating that they shouldn't have to follow X because they have an alternative opinion of the scientific data. What they're doing is a disgrace to the process of science and the work that many people have put in over centuries to bring us to where we are today. That type of behavior has no redeeming qualities; it retards our progress, harms the psyche of the impressionable, and creates conflict where a reasonable mind should find none. Those actions are based on greed, power, self-importance, and a complete disregard for rational thought. I cannot help viewing such actions with anything better than contempt and disgust. Such actions are not only an attack on science, they are an attack on our progress, our way of life, and those whom have done amazing things and given greatly so that we might have better than they.
Re:Guess you don't do textbooks
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Do a little googling. It's a complete scam to push tax dollars into private firms, and it's impossible to get in on it. There are three big companies (IIRC) that just reprocess their books and each other's ideas. The new editions are ostensibly to incorporate politically correct content and new teaching methodologies, but the methodologies are just another racket to generate new jargon and keep certain circles of speakers in the money.
He doesn't need a disposable credit card, he needs a tinfoil hat and/or common sense.
1) A company large enough to have thousands of subscribers isn't going to start running up your credit card bill. Worry about the wait staff at a restaurant, who can even record the numbers off the back, if you want to worry about that sort of thing.
2) Most game free trials I've seen specifically claim that they won't automatically start charging your card. Even if they do, if you're so uptight about it then just make sure to cancell your trial before the deadline.
3) It's very easy to tell your credit card company that you are contesting a charge and not pay it. Even without fraud protection it will cost the company more money than they charged you to get that single month's fee.
4) So many people have access to your credit card info that it's not funny. Getting uptight about giving it to one more is inane.
At my old university, they sold the student's information to a couple of credit card companies. They also sold their alumni info. The alumni card gives something like 1% cash back to the university. What kind of university fanboy would still sign up for such a card after the uni has sold their info?
I don't know. I do know that my Aunt and Uncle that used to come to Ohio on visits from Kansas claimed that they got ~110mpg on their bikes. I forget what kind of rides they had. They were nice big cushy bikes; maybe started with a V; had radio comm in the helmets (back in the late 80's / early 90's). Hmmm.
I wish they had recorded every last one of his kills, including the child, so that they could be played every day on television.
That way, people in America who think like you would have to actually face the realities of what the American government does in the name of Freedom. There are too damned many people here that claim to have Christian values, but hide reality behind rhetoric. There's a good reason why the Bush administration has put a moratorium on the showing of dead and wounded American soldiers; it coddles the sheep and keeps them happy on the way to the slaughter.
If they can make a new DVD ROM tech that works with regular DVD players that will only cost consumers $3, then why do currently mass-produced DVDs cost so damn much now?
I like to think of them in terms of Design Document, that captures the overeaching intended design, and Specification Document that is post-effort documentation.
Nothing is more specific than a clearly written implementation
That might count for design documentation, but in relation to a specification it's completely wrong.
Here's a simple example: Spec -> The line must be held high for at least 20ms in order for the signal to be recognized. Implementation -> usleep(3000);
From the implementation, how do you know the specification? You don't. The implementation works and is correct, but does not tell the whole story.
You would need to have a reference implementation that specifically exercises every last part of a system (e.g., passing every possible data type to every function), including boundary conditions, and that has notes as to the expected outcome (i.e., whether the usage is expected to work or not and how it may fail).
For comparison: I've had 100% of my articles accepted.
Of course, I've only submitted about 4 articles in the last 7 years (I think that at least one was under an old alias to which I have lost the pwd). I guess I actually submitted all of those in a timespan of 1-2 years.
In any case, I've only bothered to submit things that were truly News for Nerds and that had just been announced. If a couple of hours have gone by it's probably too late (even if the post isn't up yet, it's been submitted). For anything "mainstream" I wouldn't even bother unless you're absolutely sure that it has been posted in the last 2 seconds.
Ahh, you've hit upon it! There are no swimmers or surfers who need to be worried; the dolphins are out turning the tables and getting revenge on the sharks for eons of predation!
That is how my gf and I felt when she took some pregnancy tests after missing her period. After two of the three in the box said NO, we wondered, "Hmm. Maybe this was a bad batch and we should go back and buy another brand?".
No, we didn't do it, but it was difficult not to and to just trust that the test was accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful that you don't presume yourself that science *can* know all. It's worked great for us so far, but that's not a guarantee!
I'm not entirely sure where your stance is on the subject.
In any case, here's a little discussion for you.
1) The Big Bang hypothesis is simply a logical extrapolation of the observed universe. Currently, the best measurements show that everything cosmological is moving away from everything else (i.e., galaxies). Logically, if you run that in reverse, everything gets closer and closer to everything else. Using the observed deceleration and mass estimates, one can calculate a time at which all of the matter in the universe was at a single spot. That time and those circumstances are where our current models break down, and scientists are willing to say "we don't know". Being unsatisfied with that answer, they will conjecture and hypothesize, but they WILL NOT claim to know for certain.
2) Extra dimensions are used to help the mathematics work. Wormholes are mathematical conjectures. These ideas and more are brought into popular culture by SciFi authors, where they are romanticized and used as plot devices. The author's IMAGINATION and your consumption is where these ideas become supernatural. The mathematical definition of a wormhole and your ideas of a wormhole are wholly disparate.
3) Newtonian physics does not work best for anything. What happens is that the relitavistic effects become so minute that you can ignore them (especially because they get overshadowed by specifics that can only be modeled statistically). So, Newtonian physics work WELL ENOUGH for pretty much everything we do, but Einstein's will still give you a more accurate number.
4) Science is perfectly open to new ideas, assuming that they are testable. You can even make up entirely new math if you need to, as long as it explains known phenomena as well or better than current models. The Einstein example is a great one. (Are wormholes testable? Not as far as I know. But, the hypothesis sits upon a great deal of math that has worked great so far, and that gives the idea credibility. It is not simply a conjecture.) A question you should seriously be asking yourself is how long it took the church to admit that sunlight was not perfectly white and how open they are to new ideas. Which institution, science or religion, looks for ways in which to improve its understanding, and which opposes new ideas and escalates minutia to jihad importance?
Given your misunderstanding of the subject matter, it is no wonder that you believe science has an element of faith and theology. It seems to me that you are confusing science fiction with science. I would suggest learning to fit your mind and ideas to the world rather than the other way around, and I can guarantee that you won't be taught that at church.
The best, of course, is hearing that sentiment shortly after they profess to be certain about any of God's feelings or ideas (e.g., abortion, to pick a hot topic). It's always been the hight of hypocrisy to me, and the fact that they don't see it really lowers the stock of humanity in my eyes.
That's easy: WE DON'T KNOW. Sure, there are some hypotheses. But, as of yet, they are untestable. So, we simply don't know and science isn't going to supply an answer simply to quell the discomfort of acknowledging that we don't know everything.
And that is the crux of the clash between religion and science. Science only accepts what can be proven (while allowing for the submittal and discussion of a multitude of theories). Some religions are happy to accept as fact certain speculations or other unverifiable claims. The clash happens when someone with an unverifiable belief (often religion based) insists that a hypothesis be treated with equal scientific respect as a Law or Theory.
Follow that road and you find yourself listening to certain administrations and corporations stating that they shouldn't have to follow X because they have an alternative opinion of the scientific data. What they're doing is a disgrace to the process of science and the work that many people have put in over centuries to bring us to where we are today. That type of behavior has no redeeming qualities; it retards our progress, harms the psyche of the impressionable, and creates conflict where a reasonable mind should find none. Those actions are based on greed, power, self-importance, and a complete disregard for rational thought. I cannot help viewing such actions with anything better than contempt and disgust. Such actions are not only an attack on science, they are an attack on our progress, our way of life, and those whom have done amazing things and given greatly so that we might have better than they.
Do a little googling. It's a complete scam to push tax dollars into private firms, and it's impossible to get in on it. There are three big companies (IIRC) that just reprocess their books and each other's ideas. The new editions are ostensibly to incorporate politically correct content and new teaching methodologies, but the methodologies are just another racket to generate new jargon and keep certain circles of speakers in the money.
Have you seen how most Slashdotters post? It appears they all think they know what they're talking about...
He doesn't need a disposable credit card, he needs a tinfoil hat and/or common sense.
1) A company large enough to have thousands of subscribers isn't going to start running up your credit card bill. Worry about the wait staff at a restaurant, who can even record the numbers off the back, if you want to worry about that sort of thing.
2) Most game free trials I've seen specifically claim that they won't automatically start charging your card. Even if they do, if you're so uptight about it then just make sure to cancell your trial before the deadline.
3) It's very easy to tell your credit card company that you are contesting a charge and not pay it. Even without fraud protection it will cost the company more money than they charged you to get that single month's fee.
4) So many people have access to your credit card info that it's not funny. Getting uptight about giving it to one more is inane.
At my old university, they sold the student's information to a couple of credit card companies. They also sold their alumni info. The alumni card gives something like 1% cash back to the university. What kind of university fanboy would still sign up for such a card after the uni has sold their info?
or maybe we're using the wrong languages; there are, after all, languages that are designed to be inherently parallel
But, are the problems parallelizable?
You mean, "Ewwwww. Eat!?"
thank you thank you THANK YOU for using the correct term rather than abusing "begs the question"!
I don't know. I do know that my Aunt and Uncle that used to come to Ohio on visits from Kansas claimed that they got ~110mpg on their bikes. I forget what kind of rides they had. They were nice big cushy bikes; maybe started with a V; had radio comm in the helmets (back in the late 80's / early 90's). Hmmm.
I wish they had recorded every last one of his kills, including the child, so that they could be played every day on television.
That way, people in America who think like you would have to actually face the realities of what the American government does in the name of Freedom. There are too damned many people here that claim to have Christian values, but hide reality behind rhetoric. There's a good reason why the Bush administration has put a moratorium on the showing of dead and wounded American soldiers; it coddles the sheep and keeps them happy on the way to the slaughter.
If they can make a new DVD ROM tech that works with regular DVD players that will only cost consumers $3, then why do currently mass-produced DVDs cost so damn much now?
I thought that maybe she just had her first device driver accepted into the kernel, or something.
Re: #1
I'm employed by an aerospace contractor. Would you like to know one of the things that is in our budget? I'll tell ya: Cell phone late fees.
Yes, we actually budget money because we will be paying our cell phone bills late.
Don't ask me how, why, or what the fuck. I don't know why, all I know is that we do.
I want to cry now. Goodbye.
I like to think of them in terms of Design Document, that captures the overeaching intended design, and Specification Document that is post-effort documentation.
Nothing is more specific than a clearly written implementation
That might count for design documentation, but in relation to a specification it's completely wrong.
Here's a simple example:
Spec -> The line must be held high for at least 20ms in order for the signal to be recognized.
Implementation -> usleep(3000);
From the implementation, how do you know the specification? You don't. The implementation works and is correct, but does not tell the whole story.
You would need to have a reference implementation that specifically exercises every last part of a system (e.g., passing every possible data type to every function), including boundary conditions, and that has notes as to the expected outcome (i.e., whether the usage is expected to work or not and how it may fail).
Congratulations, you've just written your spec.!
Go read "The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect" http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/mopiidx.ht ml
p.s. Thank the gods that someone below posted this link. I was wracking my brain like crazy trying to remember the name of that book.
For comparison:
I've had 100% of my articles accepted.
Of course, I've only submitted about 4 articles in the last 7 years (I think that at least one was under an old alias to which I have lost the pwd). I guess I actually submitted all of those in a timespan of 1-2 years.
In any case, I've only bothered to submit things that were truly News for Nerds and that had just been announced. If a couple of hours have gone by it's probably too late (even if the post isn't up yet, it's been submitted). For anything "mainstream" I wouldn't even bother unless you're absolutely sure that it has been posted in the last 2 seconds.
Ahh, you've hit upon it! There are no swimmers or surfers who need to be worried; the dolphins are out turning the tables and getting revenge on the sharks for eons of predation!
You're exactly right.
That is how my gf and I felt when she took some pregnancy tests after missing her period. After two of the three in the box said NO, we wondered, "Hmm. Maybe this was a bad batch and we should go back and buy another brand?".
No, we didn't do it, but it was difficult not to and to just trust that the test was accurate.
Isn't that "Profit!" reference due to The Simpsons (and the underwear gnomes IIRC)?
Yes, you can do that. Of course, the question would soon become, "You and what army?".
Somehow, I don't think "squatter's rights" would get you far.
10 cm is a pretty wimpy bump
That's what she said.