you don't have to know what something is in order to create it.
But I would argue that you do have to know what something is to know whether or not you've created it. Naturally, knowing what something is is necessary but not sufficient for knowing that you've created it. I.e., it is conceivable that one day we'll know what sentience is and still only be able to create it through procreation. However, it is also possible that one day we'll discover that defining sentience is as useful as defining the aether. Some might argue that this is already painfully obvious - especially if some spend a lot of time reading/.:)
I'd like them to start teaching my alternatives to Schwarzschild metrics when they're discussing general relativity theory in their high school physics class.
Robots are not sentient. We do not even know what sentience is. The only way for us humans to create sentience is to procreate.
You correctly state that we do not know what sentience is, but then you claim that the only way to create sentience is to procreate. How do we know if we're sentient, if we do not know what sentience is?
Or is this like [insert term here]? I don't know what [term] is, but I'll know it when I see it.
I, too, immediately thought of German when I saw "der Mouse" (although in German it would be "die Maus", since Maus is feminine). Since they're located in Montreal, however, it seems unlikely that they'd be inclined to use German, and would be more likely to go for a French reference. So I ask, where does the "der" come from?
So, if I use the power lines for broadband ethernet, will I still be able to use this technology to power my computer, or does it only work for ethernet cables?
It looks to me more like ~200 more in 13 minutes. Where are you getting 3.5 hours? (Perhaps somewhere else he mentioned doing this 3.25 hours before the story was posted?) Yes, this is a serious question - I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck.
used to have a Santa web-site that for many years they ran without any advertising. One year, they decided to use a 3rd party company to serve ads in an attempt to make a little money off the site. At one point a pornographic ad was served up, generating a phone call from an irate parent. Although this was not the norm (and as far as I know it only happened once), the president of the company immediately stopped using that company. If more companies acted this way what you say might not be true any more. Unfortunately, it is currently true.
As you run a home network with logging, why not block the domains that are bothering you? (just the ad domains, not the sites your son is learning from).
I think you missed the part where the GP mentioned what her son was learning - how to make pirated copies of software. In this case, blocking both sites would make sense. Kudos to her for handling the situation in a very cool-headed and logical manner.
Although it is true that many who are against gay rights (I am not one of them) use the concept of homosexuality as a choice to distinguish it from other civil rights issues, there is also a contingent who believe that it is a disease. So, arguing against it being a choice (I still wonder who would choose to be ostricized) will probably never work, as even if you can convince these people that some people are just born this way, then they will begin to consider it a genetic defect.
Your trolling repetition of the lefty notion that all businesses will take a profit no matter what, with no thought to any other factor, is either insulting to the intelligence of your audience here (though some twits did mod it up), or reflects serious gullibility and lack of information on your part.
Although I agree with almost everything else you said, this statement struck me as funny. Funny, not stupid, because it made me realize that my assumption that the statement was from the other side of aisle is no doubt based on as much logic as your assumption. Nevertheless, I thought it worthwhile to point out that this statement (that corporations are only interested in profit) is not necessarily leftist or rightist, just wrong.
(In case you're wondering why I think it's from a rightist point of view is that when the GP poster said "corporations are only interested in profit", when obviously not all corporations are, I assumed that the poster was of the opinion that they should only be interested in profit. Nevertheless, I realize that this is an assumption.)
We should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!
In the 50s, when blue-collar workers actually represented the things you described you might have had a point.
Seeing as how the original post is about equal rights for homosexuals, I find this statement quite confusing. Back then, not only would the majority be against gay marriages, they would also be against interracial marriages!
You never know around these parts, but I assume you are being funny. If so, I did find it funny, although I would have found it funnier if I wasn't a little worried you weren't being serious! (On the off chance that you are being serious, read here - from the library of congress, although you can find similar material in many other well respected websites - about how the Coriolis effect does not determine the direction the water swirls in the drain.)
There is also a blurb on SSA for trees
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
(here) which is probably quite useful if you already know what SSA is and how it applies to trees.
But I don't like the first one. Declining to hear the case is making a decision - a decision to let the lower court's ruling stand. Perhaps this is their intent, but I suspect your rationale might be the more common one. I truly have no idea.
As for your second point, for some laws this makes sense, but I'm not sure if it does for all laws. Take the Schiavo case - once the feeding tube was out some type of decision must be made, and made quickly. In this particular case I agree that the correct decision is to leave the case to the local/state courts. However, this case highlights the fact that we don't always have the luxury of letting the legislation clean up the law.
As an aside, I read an excellent comment somewhere about why (some) laws should not be written like software design specifications should be written. If the laws try to be too exact, they end up spelling out exactly where the loop-holes are. An interesting idea, although I'm not entirely sure I agree with it.
Applied behavioral analysis has many uses (e.g., in the treatment of autism) and is a perfectly valid technique. Furthermore, Walden Two is an excellent book! And, Skinner made many valid points.
Whether or not you agree with any of behaviorism, do not associate it with the GP post! This is like associating Jon Stewart wtih Michael Moore, just because they're both liberal - it's just rude!
Or vagueness? Many laws (if not most) have a fair amount of vagueness in them (some by design), and sometimes two laws conflict with each other. Now, sometimes the ambiguity can be resolved by looking at the intent of the law, to the degree that such a thing exists. (Most people will agree that there's a "spirit" and a "letter" of the law. Where the "letter" is inexact, the "spirit" can help.) However, sometimes a case arises that even the best intentioned (and/or most conservative) judge cannot resolve simply by looking at past precedence, the spirit of the law, etc. In these cases, what is the proper avenue for this judge? Is it better to look at how other countries have resolved this situation and learn from their successes AND failures (i.e., if their resolution resulted in chaos, perhaps a different resolution should be considered), or should the judge rely on the toss of a coin? Or, better yet, perhaps he should ask his favorite political party for an opinion?
In Arkansas, it must first pass both houses by a simple majority in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
In Georgia and Mississippi, it must first pass both houses by a 2/3 vote in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
In Kentucky, it must first pass both houses by a 3/5 vote, and then a simple majority in the general public.
In Montana, it can be put in front of the general public by either passing both houses with a 2/3 vote OR a petition of 10% of the registered voters. From there, a simple majority is all that's required.
The point being is that, it varies by state. I have simplified the process somewhat (and might have inadvertently left off alternative scenarios), so for more information see Cornell's web-site on all things legal.
I started dragging the map and was amused by how the Atlantic Ocean kept going and going and going... I then went back and dragged down and noticed the conspicuous absence of South America.
Nevertheless, it was kind of fun, even if they didn't have any listing for Charlottesville, VA, even though it is the best city in the US in which to live.
First of all, I agree that quantum computing is a very complex field. However, I think you miscontrue my assertion that the "state" that is transferred in the EPR paradox does not transfer information (between photons) with a broader (and demonstrably false) assertion that quantum states in general do not contain information. I cannot state that I know with absolute certainty that EPR states do not transfer information between photons, but I do believe this to be the case because I have faith in the causality ordering principle (COP), and because others who know much more than I do have shown how every possible way conceived of so far to transfer information from one EPR photon to another fails.
Secondly, I agree that some of the long standing ideas we have about the physical nature of our surroundings are going to have to change a bit. The fact that QM and GR don't agree with each other makes that point very clear. One (or most likely both) of these theories must be wrong. I'd like to believe that whatever replaces these theories (e.g., M-theory) will make more intuitive sense than QM, but something tells me that it's going to make QM seem very rational indeed.
Finally, notice that my last name is Hocking, not Hawking:), so I'm not sure who you think I am, but I don't think that I am who you think I am. On your previous post you mentioned my students (which having been both a public high school teacher and a TA I have had, but I suspect you're thinking something differnt), and on this post you mention "[my] position" and "[my] achievements". My position is a Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science studying neural network simulations of the hippocampus, and my achievements in the public domain are not at all extensive. (I also have an M.S. in Physics/Astronomy in case you're wondering where some of my physics knowledge comes from.)
Actually, since he used the phrase "everywhere on earth", I'm fairly certain he wasn't talking from a Moon reference point - unless you're referring to some other "he". And yes, what we on Earth would call a lunar eclipse would be a total solar eclipse on the Moon, which is exactly what my last sentence was alluding to, if in somewhat a confusing manner. And what I referred to as a terran eclipse (or what you call an Earth eclipse) would simply be an umbra surrounded by a penumbra traveling across the Earth's surface. I think this might even be a cooler looking eclipse than the kind we get here on Earth!
As for the star theory, the massless, but very large body was a prop used so that I could arrive at a very simple answer without having to incorporate GR, etc. One could still construct such apparent FTL travel of a shadow even with body that has mass, but it is somewhat more difficult. An easy explanation, indeed (as you point out), is that it is the absence of light that is moving FTL and not anything with physicality. Additionally, it was exactly my point that this was not a violation of any known laws, but merely an amusing example of something (i.e., the shadow) that is traveling FTL. All such somethings that can travel FTL can have no causal effect and in that sense have no real physicality (if that is even a word).
In the case of quantum entanglement, the change in "state" can not be used to convey information and hence has no causal characteristics. This is most definitely not nit-picking, as it is central to the resolution of the apparent EPR paradox.
I'll tackle the star example in a different reply (so as to start separating these!).
Slashdot Mirror
But I would argue that you do have to know what something is to know whether or not you've created it. Naturally, knowing what something is is necessary but not sufficient for knowing that you've created it. I.e., it is conceivable that one day we'll know what sentience is and still only be able to create it through procreation. However, it is also possible that one day we'll discover that defining sentience is as useful as defining the aether. Some might argue that this is already painfully obvious - especially if some spend a lot of time reading /. :)
I'd like them to start teaching my alternatives to Schwarzschild metrics when they're discussing general relativity theory in their high school physics class.
You correctly state that we do not know what sentience is, but then you claim that the only way to create sentience is to procreate. How do we know if we're sentient, if we do not know what sentience is?
Or is this like [insert term here]? I don't know what [term] is, but I'll know it when I see it.
Sure, that's what they'll want you to have thunk.
I, too, immediately thought of German when I saw "der Mouse" (although in German it would be "die Maus", since Maus is feminine). Since they're located in Montreal, however, it seems unlikely that they'd be inclined to use German, and would be more likely to go for a French reference. So I ask, where does the "der" come from?
So, if I use the power lines for broadband ethernet, will I still be able to use this technology to power my computer, or does it only work for ethernet cables?
Next thing you know you're going to tell me that he only listens to partisan scientists. Oh, wait... :P
It looks to me more like ~200 more in 13 minutes. Where are you getting 3.5 hours? (Perhaps somewhere else he mentioned doing this 3.25 hours before the story was posted?) Yes, this is a serious question - I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck.
I just signed it and I'm number 499.
used to have a Santa web-site that for many years they ran without any advertising. One year, they decided to use a 3rd party company to serve ads in an attempt to make a little money off the site. At one point a pornographic ad was served up, generating a phone call from an irate parent. Although this was not the norm (and as far as I know it only happened once), the president of the company immediately stopped using that company. If more companies acted this way what you say might not be true any more. Unfortunately, it is currently true.
I think you missed the part where the GP mentioned what her son was learning - how to make pirated copies of software. In this case, blocking both sites would make sense. Kudos to her for handling the situation in a very cool-headed and logical manner.
Although it is true that many who are against gay rights (I am not one of them) use the concept of homosexuality as a choice to distinguish it from other civil rights issues, there is also a contingent who believe that it is a disease. So, arguing against it being a choice (I still wonder who would choose to be ostricized) will probably never work, as even if you can convince these people that some people are just born this way, then they will begin to consider it a genetic defect.
Although I agree with almost everything else you said, this statement struck me as funny. Funny, not stupid, because it made me realize that my assumption that the statement was from the other side of aisle is no doubt based on as much logic as your assumption. Nevertheless, I thought it worthwhile to point out that this statement (that corporations are only interested in profit) is not necessarily leftist or rightist, just wrong.
(In case you're wondering why I think it's from a rightist point of view is that when the GP poster said "corporations are only interested in profit", when obviously not all corporations are, I assumed that the poster was of the opinion that they should only be interested in profit. Nevertheless, I realize that this is an assumption.)
You never know around these parts, but I assume you are being funny. If so, I did find it funny, although I would have found it funnier if I wasn't a little worried you weren't being serious! (On the off chance that you are being serious, read here - from the library of congress, although you can find similar material in many other well respected websites - about how the Coriolis effect does not determine the direction the water swirls in the drain.)
(here) which is probably quite useful if you already know what SSA is and how it applies to trees.
But I don't like the first one. Declining to hear the case is making a decision - a decision to let the lower court's ruling stand. Perhaps this is their intent, but I suspect your rationale might be the more common one. I truly have no idea.
As for your second point, for some laws this makes sense, but I'm not sure if it does for all laws. Take the Schiavo case - once the feeding tube was out some type of decision must be made, and made quickly. In this particular case I agree that the correct decision is to leave the case to the local/state courts. However, this case highlights the fact that we don't always have the luxury of letting the legislation clean up the law.
As an aside, I read an excellent comment somewhere about why (some) laws should not be written like software design specifications should be written. If the laws try to be too exact, they end up spelling out exactly where the loop-holes are. An interesting idea, although I'm not entirely sure I agree with it.
Applied behavioral analysis has many uses (e.g., in the treatment of autism) and is a perfectly valid technique. Furthermore, Walden Two is an excellent book! And, Skinner made many valid points.
Whether or not you agree with any of behaviorism, do not associate it with the GP post! This is like associating Jon Stewart wtih Michael Moore, just because they're both liberal - it's just rude!
Or vagueness? Many laws (if not most) have a fair amount of vagueness in them (some by design), and sometimes two laws conflict with each other. Now, sometimes the ambiguity can be resolved by looking at the intent of the law, to the degree that such a thing exists. (Most people will agree that there's a "spirit" and a "letter" of the law. Where the "letter" is inexact, the "spirit" can help.) However, sometimes a case arises that even the best intentioned (and/or most conservative) judge cannot resolve simply by looking at past precedence, the spirit of the law, etc. In these cases, what is the proper avenue for this judge? Is it better to look at how other countries have resolved this situation and learn from their successes AND failures (i.e., if their resolution resulted in chaos, perhaps a different resolution should be considered), or should the judge rely on the toss of a coin? Or, better yet, perhaps he should ask his favorite political party for an opinion?
- In Arkansas, it must first pass both houses by a simple majority in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
- In Georgia and Mississippi, it must first pass both houses by a 2/3 vote in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
- In Kentucky, it must first pass both houses by a 3/5 vote, and then a simple majority in the general public.
- In Montana, it can be put in front of the general public by either passing both houses with a 2/3 vote OR a petition of 10% of the registered voters. From there, a simple majority is all that's required.
The point being is that, it varies by state. I have simplified the process somewhat (and might have inadvertently left off alternative scenarios), so for more information see Cornell's web-site on all things legal.Biotech ain't got nothing on particle physics (My count yielded 600 authors on this paper (or "study").)
I started dragging the map and was amused by how the Atlantic Ocean kept going and going and going... I then went back and dragged down and noticed the conspicuous absence of South America.
Nevertheless, it was kind of fun, even if they didn't have any listing for Charlottesville, VA, even though it is the best city in the US in which to live.
First of all, I agree that quantum computing is a very complex field. However, I think you miscontrue my assertion that the "state" that is transferred in the EPR paradox does not transfer information (between photons) with a broader (and demonstrably false) assertion that quantum states in general do not contain information. I cannot state that I know with absolute certainty that EPR states do not transfer information between photons, but I do believe this to be the case because I have faith in the causality ordering principle (COP), and because others who know much more than I do have shown how every possible way conceived of so far to transfer information from one EPR photon to another fails.
Secondly, I agree that some of the long standing ideas we have about the physical nature of our surroundings are going to have to change a bit. The fact that QM and GR don't agree with each other makes that point very clear. One (or most likely both) of these theories must be wrong. I'd like to believe that whatever replaces these theories (e.g., M-theory) will make more intuitive sense than QM, but something tells me that it's going to make QM seem very rational indeed.
Finally, notice that my last name is Hocking, not Hawking :), so I'm not sure who you think I am, but I don't think that I am who you think I am. On your previous post you mentioned my students (which having been both a public high school teacher and a TA I have had, but I suspect you're thinking something differnt), and on this post you mention "[my] position" and "[my] achievements". My position is a Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science studying neural network simulations of the hippocampus, and my achievements in the public domain are not at all extensive. (I also have an M.S. in Physics/Astronomy in case you're wondering where some of my physics knowledge comes from.)
Actually, since he used the phrase "everywhere on earth", I'm fairly certain he wasn't talking from a Moon reference point - unless you're referring to some other "he". And yes, what we on Earth would call a lunar eclipse would be a total solar eclipse on the Moon, which is exactly what my last sentence was alluding to, if in somewhat a confusing manner. And what I referred to as a terran eclipse (or what you call an Earth eclipse) would simply be an umbra surrounded by a penumbra traveling across the Earth's surface. I think this might even be a cooler looking eclipse than the kind we get here on Earth!
As for the star theory, the massless, but very large body was a prop used so that I could arrive at a very simple answer without having to incorporate GR, etc. One could still construct such apparent FTL travel of a shadow even with body that has mass, but it is somewhat more difficult. An easy explanation, indeed (as you point out), is that it is the absence of light that is moving FTL and not anything with physicality. Additionally, it was exactly my point that this was not a violation of any known laws, but merely an amusing example of something (i.e., the shadow) that is traveling FTL. All such somethings that can travel FTL can have no causal effect and in that sense have no real physicality (if that is even a word).
In the case of quantum entanglement, the change in "state" can not be used to convey information and hence has no causal characteristics. This is most definitely not nit-picking, as it is central to the resolution of the apparent EPR paradox.
I'll tackle the star example in a different reply (so as to start separating these!).