No it doesn't. I probably would have worded that statement as "Doesn't prove the existence of slavery".:)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is implication that they traded together more than anything?
No, it is an implication that there was an interaction, which corroborates (as circumstantial evidence) their existence in Egypt. Again, it doesn't prove the existence of slavery, either. However, I'm not sure why one would doubt that.
I don't dispute there's facts in there. There's facts in the Iliad as well. Simply because there are historical facts mixed with untruths does not indicate there's a definitive "God" as proposed in the bible.
Obviously, I'm claiming no such thing, and do not expect to ever find Adam's nor Eve's skeletons. I was going to mention Noah's flood, but there is also "corroborating" evidence there, too. By corroborating I mean:
(a) There's evidence that there might have been a flood that created the Mediterranean Sea and that this flood is in the collective consciousness of the region. That explains the numerous flood stories in different mythologies/religions.
(b) Various people keep claiming to find some evidence of the ark itself. Perhaps this would be more corroborating "evidence" than "corroborating" evidence, however.
And as an aside - the Israelis were slaves to the Pharoa (that looks mispelled) for how many years according to the Bible? Yet they're the only culture that has been enslaved for a period of that long and left NO archaelogical marks on Egypt, nor had any adoption of Yiddish/Hebrew into Egyptian, nor Egyptian insinuating itself into Hebrew?
Yeah, wouldn't it be great if someone found some evidence of Semitic influence in Egypt? If you want to read more about the history of Jews in Egypt, try Wikipedia.
(Note: I'm an agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. I also know enough about the Bible to know that there's a lot of historical fact in there.)
Who's going to be the first to add "bigit" to Wikipedia? It should say something like: "Term first coined on/. in order to be re-abbreviated as 'bit'. Used to make example of how 'qubit' might one day be called 'quit'. Bigit should rhyme with digit so as to not be confused with bigot."
Here's a plan: people stop buying RIAA music, it goes under, we have to find a new way to share music and support the artist. The market just can't sustain current prices for an infinitely reproduce good that funds the artists with 10%. If RIAA stays firm, and more people take the "civil disobedience" approach, maybe a magnificent paradigm shift will occur.
And perhaps we'll be greeted as liberators? I think one has to assume quite a bit to think your "plan" will work.
Again, don't use the phrase "civil disobedience" unless it's actually being done with the intent of helping society. I highly doubt that's the motive in the vast majority of cases. I strongly suspect that most people are downloading music because (a) it's convenient, and (b) it's cheap (and/or free). (Of course, you did use scare quotes yourself, so perhaps you were just being euphemistic.)
You are right. It's been a while since I've delved into relativity (I'm embarrased to admit that my Master's thesis involved general relativity). The complete equation for energy, including rest mass and kinetic energy is:
E = sqrt(mc^2 + pc),
or as it's more commonly written:
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2,
where m is the rest mass. Speaking of general relativity, I should point out that the above equation for energy is assuming a Minkowski (flat) space-time metric.
Thanks for the correction.
Also, for v much smaller than c, 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) approaches 1, as v^2/c^2 approaches 0.
True. However, for v significantly smaller than c, 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) approaches 1 + (1/2)v^2/c^2 + (3/8)v^4/c^4. For even smaller v, you can drop the v^4 term and get 1 + (1/2)v^2/c^2 which does yield E = mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2, which is why it's easy to make the mistake that I made. (Obviously, for even smaller v, this does approach mc^2, but that's similar to saying that kinetic energy is insignificant relative to rest energy. I say similar, because I'm also not claiming anymore that my original equation was right - just an interesting, if misleading, approximation.)
The other formula for E, you might have heard of, is E=mc^2. m = \gamma m_0, where m_0 is the rest mass, \gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 - \beta^2), and beta = v/c. I.e.,
E=m_0 c^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
For very small values of v (relative to c), 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) \approx = (1/2)v^2/c^2, which leads back to your formula - but the approximation is only valid for v
I'm not judging anybody's actions here, I'm just saying that's not civil disobedience. I'm assuming you don't consider what you're doing civil disobedience, right?
I was wrong on the first point, but not the second (i.e., we agree). And the Underground Railroad is another fine example of civil disobedience. Downloading songs illegally, however, is not (in most cases), as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread in more detail.
I hope you're talking about my nationality and not my age!
Seriously, your comparison is more apt than the one to Rosa Parks. A major difference is that copyright infringement was illegal before large numbers of people started downloading songs. However, the very real possibility that the horse is already out of the barn makes this a decent analogy.
Do you really think that Rosa Parks stayed at the front of the bus because she knew it would bring about social change? I doubt it, she probably just wanted to sit at the front of the bus.
Yes. Yes, I do. Read up on the details around this event. It was no decision made on the spur of the moment.
But, from your own guesses, what fraction of "illegal" downloads do you think that accounts for? Also, do you think these acts are beneficial towards changing the laws? If the goal is to change the laws, could time be better spent towards that goal? (Not asking you to convince me, just asking for your opinion.)
I won't disagree with your comments on civil disobedience, as I don't want to get on Thoreau's bad side. However, I do think that one has to believe that what they're doing is fundamentally right for it to be civil disobedience. My opinion (and of course there's no way to back this up) is that most people who break copyright laws do not think it's the right thing to do. They just think it's not that bad. It's no big deal, etc. I imagine it's hard to keep a straight face and claim that it's the right thing to do.
Are copyright laws broken? Absolutely. However, I don't know how anyone can think a two-year rule is unreasonable. (By that I mean at least two-years. I've set it below where I think it makes sense.) I suspect that most downloaded music violates even that simple two-year "rule". Should people be able to copy music they've bought to other devices for their own listening, or even for playing at parties, etc.? Sure. Again, that's not what I think we're talking about here. I hear these excuses trotted out, but I suspect they're just that. Excuses.
You mention that people misconstrue civil disobedience to mean that it has to involve getting arrested or cited. Well, I think people also misconstrue civil disobedience to mean doing the wrong thing because I feel like it and I don't think I'll get caught. That's what it sounds like to my ears, anyways.
Again, I'm not defending the RIAA. I'm just defending Rosa Parks, the Boston Tea Party, and I'm trying to defend civil disobedience (perhaps imperfectly).
"Pirating" music is about breaking the law in order to save yourself some change.
People don't push for political change that doesn't benifit them. I'm not sure what you're really getting at here. The implication that if it's possible to pay money for something one is ethically obligated to do so... that's absurd.
Do you really not understand me? First, the comment was a play on words. I assume you caught that. Secondly, I'm referring back to my earlier statement that (unlike the Boston Tea Party), I do not believe that people are downloading music primarily to make a political statement or to motivate social change. They're doing it to get free music. Whether or not you think that's right, it ain't the Boston Tea Party and it certainly isn't Rosa Parks.
Obviously, the "implication that if it's possible to pay money for something one is ethically obligated to do so" is absurd. That's why I made no such implication or anything halfway close to it. No more than you're implying that if it's possible to violate copyright law one is ethically obligated to do so.
If you really didn't understand me, I have no idea why. How could I have made my point any clearer? (Of course, I'm assuming that you understand me now, and no, understanding!=agreeing.)
If she had somehow hidden her act (which was impossible of course), then her act would have had little impact. Civil disobedience does not mean breaking the law without being caught. It entails breaking the law to bring about change. "Pirating" music is about breaking the law in order to save yourself some change. Two very different things. Please, don't demean Rosa Parks by the comparison.
Absolutely (and on all accounts). More than one person can be guilty of a single crime, whether that crime is murder, theft of a single object, or even copyright infringement of a single object. Do not think that being only 0.01% responsible for a crime will mean that you will be only 0.01% responsible for the penalty associated with that crime. It's not how our justice system works. Of course, IANAL.
If you're trying to understand a fruit-fly, then the current project is great. However, without using large numbers of neurons, you're going to miss out on important details. For example, when a signal travels down the axon, there's a certain probability that the signal will "fail" to cross the synaptic cleft. This is called a synaptic failure. It turns out that in simulations our lab did that such failures actually improve cognitive performance in a hippocampal model (and presumably in other regions of the brain as well). This was only true for models that had more than 2,000 neurons. Additionally, increasing the number of neurons increases the "optimal" synaptic failure rate. At 100,000 neurons the optimal failure rate was about 50-60%. (We actually simulate just the CA3 region of the hippocampus. For comparison, the rat CA3 has about 250,000 neurons in this region, and humans have about 2,300,000.) In the human brain, the actual failure rate is between 55-85% (depending partly on the part of the brain we're talking about). This is only one example out of many where the size of the network is very important in determining "why" nature made certain choices.
I've been doing a lot of simulations with Izhikevich-based neurons (combined with RC filtered dendrites), and really appreciate his work. Have you read his 2007 book? (I have it, but have not yet read much of it.)
The first type of back-propagation is the term as it is used by computer scientists using neural networks. (This is what you're thinking of.) The second type of back-propagation is the term as it is used by neuroscientists. Unfortunately, they are two completely different things. As a computer scientist who does brain modeling, this greatly irritates me.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't. I probably would have worded that statement as "Doesn't prove the existence of slavery". :)
No, it is an implication that there was an interaction, which corroborates (as circumstantial evidence) their existence in Egypt. Again, it doesn't prove the existence of slavery, either. However, I'm not sure why one would doubt that.
Obviously, I'm claiming no such thing, and do not expect to ever find Adam's nor Eve's skeletons. I was going to mention Noah's flood, but there is also "corroborating" evidence there, too. By corroborating I mean:
(a) There's evidence that there might have been a flood that created the Mediterranean Sea and that this flood is in the collective consciousness of the region. That explains the numerous flood stories in different mythologies/religions.
(b) Various people keep claiming to find some evidence of the ark itself. Perhaps this would be more corroborating "evidence" than "corroborating" evidence, however.
Yeah, wouldn't it be great if someone found some evidence of Semitic influence in Egypt? If you want to read more about the history of Jews in Egypt, try Wikipedia.
(Note: I'm an agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. I also know enough about the Bible to know that there's a lot of historical fact in there.)
If the profit goes back into the charity to do other work or R&D on a $50 version, then that does not make it any less of a charity.
Who's going to be the first to add "bigit" to Wikipedia? It should say something like: "Term first coined on /. in order to be re-abbreviated as 'bit'. Used to make example of how 'qubit' might one day be called 'quit'. Bigit should rhyme with digit so as to not be confused with bigot."
Yeah, I tried using ² and ≅ to no avail. (sigh)
I also forgot to use < to say for v << c, which is why my end looks cut off.
And perhaps we'll be greeted as liberators? I think one has to assume quite a bit to think your "plan" will work.
Again, don't use the phrase "civil disobedience" unless it's actually being done with the intent of helping society. I highly doubt that's the motive in the vast majority of cases. I strongly suspect that most people are downloading music because (a) it's convenient, and (b) it's cheap (and/or free). (Of course, you did use scare quotes yourself, so perhaps you were just being euphemistic.)
You are right. It's been a while since I've delved into relativity (I'm embarrased to admit that my Master's thesis involved general relativity). The complete equation for energy, including rest mass and kinetic energy is:
E = sqrt(mc^2 + pc),
or as it's more commonly written:
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2,
where m is the rest mass. Speaking of general relativity, I should point out that the above equation for energy is assuming a Minkowski (flat) space-time metric.
Thanks for the correction.
True. However, for v significantly smaller than c, 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) approaches 1 + (1/2)v^2/c^2 + (3/8)v^4/c^4. For even smaller v, you can drop the v^4 term and get 1 + (1/2)v^2/c^2 which does yield E = mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2, which is why it's easy to make the mistake that I made. (Obviously, for even smaller v, this does approach mc^2, but that's similar to saying that kinetic energy is insignificant relative to rest energy. I say similar, because I'm also not claiming anymore that my original equation was right - just an interesting, if misleading, approximation.)
Rushed through it too quickly.
E=mv^2/2 only for small values of v.
The other formula for E, you might have heard of, is E=mc^2. m = \gamma m_0, where m_0 is the rest mass, \gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 - \beta^2), and beta = v/c. I.e.,
E=m_0 c^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
For very small values of v (relative to c), 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) \approx = (1/2)v^2/c^2, which leads back to your formula - but the approximation is only valid for v
As someone who has had glasses since 4 and started using computers at 7, I think bad eyesight leads to computer usage.
But I hope you realize you are the exception and not the rule.
Why else would they call it the Ghandi Old Party?
I'm not judging anybody's actions here, I'm just saying that's not civil disobedience. I'm assuming you don't consider what you're doing civil disobedience, right?
I was wrong on the first point, but not the second (i.e., we agree). And the Underground Railroad is another fine example of civil disobedience. Downloading songs illegally, however, is not (in most cases), as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread in more detail.
I hope you're talking about my nationality and not my age!
Seriously, your comparison is more apt than the one to Rosa Parks. A major difference is that copyright infringement was illegal before large numbers of people started downloading songs. However, the very real possibility that the horse is already out of the barn makes this a decent analogy.
Yes. Yes, I do. Read up on the details around this event. It was no decision made on the spur of the moment.
But, from your own guesses, what fraction of "illegal" downloads do you think that accounts for? Also, do you think these acts are beneficial towards changing the laws? If the goal is to change the laws, could time be better spent towards that goal? (Not asking you to convince me, just asking for your opinion.)
I won't disagree with your comments on civil disobedience, as I don't want to get on Thoreau's bad side. However, I do think that one has to believe that what they're doing is fundamentally right for it to be civil disobedience. My opinion (and of course there's no way to back this up) is that most people who break copyright laws do not think it's the right thing to do. They just think it's not that bad. It's no big deal, etc. I imagine it's hard to keep a straight face and claim that it's the right thing to do.
Are copyright laws broken? Absolutely. However, I don't know how anyone can think a two-year rule is unreasonable. (By that I mean at least two-years. I've set it below where I think it makes sense.) I suspect that most downloaded music violates even that simple two-year "rule". Should people be able to copy music they've bought to other devices for their own listening, or even for playing at parties, etc.? Sure. Again, that's not what I think we're talking about here. I hear these excuses trotted out, but I suspect they're just that. Excuses.
You mention that people misconstrue civil disobedience to mean that it has to involve getting arrested or cited. Well, I think people also misconstrue civil disobedience to mean doing the wrong thing because I feel like it and I don't think I'll get caught. That's what it sounds like to my ears, anyways.
Again, I'm not defending the RIAA. I'm just defending Rosa Parks, the Boston Tea Party, and I'm trying to defend civil disobedience (perhaps imperfectly).
Do you really not understand me? First, the comment was a play on words. I assume you caught that. Secondly, I'm referring back to my earlier statement that (unlike the Boston Tea Party), I do not believe that people are downloading music primarily to make a political statement or to motivate social change. They're doing it to get free music. Whether or not you think that's right, it ain't the Boston Tea Party and it certainly isn't Rosa Parks.
Obviously, the "implication that if it's possible to pay money for something one is ethically obligated to do so" is absurd. That's why I made no such implication or anything halfway close to it. No more than you're implying that if it's possible to violate copyright law one is ethically obligated to do so.
If you really didn't understand me, I have no idea why. How could I have made my point any clearer? (Of course, I'm assuming that you understand me now, and no, understanding!=agreeing.)
If she had somehow hidden her act (which was impossible of course), then her act would have had little impact. Civil disobedience does not mean breaking the law without being caught. It entails breaking the law to bring about change. "Pirating" music is about breaking the law in order to save yourself some change. Two very different things. Please, don't demean Rosa Parks by the comparison.
Absolutely (and on all accounts). More than one person can be guilty of a single crime, whether that crime is murder, theft of a single object, or even copyright infringement of a single object. Do not think that being only 0.01% responsible for a crime will mean that you will be only 0.01% responsible for the penalty associated with that crime. It's not how our justice system works. Of course, IANAL.
If you're trying to understand a fruit-fly, then the current project is great. However, without using large numbers of neurons, you're going to miss out on important details. For example, when a signal travels down the axon, there's a certain probability that the signal will "fail" to cross the synaptic cleft. This is called a synaptic failure. It turns out that in simulations our lab did that such failures actually improve cognitive performance in a hippocampal model (and presumably in other regions of the brain as well). This was only true for models that had more than 2,000 neurons. Additionally, increasing the number of neurons increases the "optimal" synaptic failure rate. At 100,000 neurons the optimal failure rate was about 50-60%. (We actually simulate just the CA3 region of the hippocampus. For comparison, the rat CA3 has about 250,000 neurons in this region, and humans have about 2,300,000.) In the human brain, the actual failure rate is between 55-85% (depending partly on the part of the brain we're talking about). This is only one example out of many where the size of the network is very important in determining "why" nature made certain choices.
I've been doing a lot of simulations with Izhikevich-based neurons (combined with RC filtered dendrites), and really appreciate his work. Have you read his 2007 book? (I have it, but have not yet read much of it.)
The first type of back-propagation is the term as it is used by computer scientists using neural networks. (This is what you're thinking of.) The second type of back-propagation is the term as it is used by neuroscientists. Unfortunately, they are two completely different things. As a computer scientist who does brain modeling, this greatly irritates me.