>>Given normal observed scientific principles, complex systems tend to break down to smaller simpler systems over time without some external organizing force making it otherwise.
This is only true of a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system.
No, you are confused with thermal entropy. Things left to themselves deteriorate (decrease in order); gases will mix if placed in the same container, etc. There must be a driving force to go against deterioration, and that requires energy as well as the organizing force. That is why organisms have self-repair mechanisms, but die of old age anyways. I think the GP is refering to the fact (correct me if i'm wrong) that no one has ever observed mutations that come up with new, useful information, though there have been sereval mutations that destroy information (even if they are benefitial, like the one that regulates the amount of anti-penicillin some bacteria produce).
I don't care what they are called -- there are still assumptions in science. Perfectly valid assumptions, to be sure, and the best that can be gotten for what science does (find ways to predict what/how things happen in the real vorld).
How do you know that the scientific method will arrive at the truth? You don't! When has science ever been right? Always close, and getting closer, but old theories get replaced by newer, more accurate ones all the time. Not that science is useless; it produces accurate predictions about the real world. Yet if you seek truth, perhaps you should study philosophy. Though philosophy may have gotten pretty much nowhere in 2000 years, it is at least concerned with truth. Science is concerned with predicting and explaining the real world, in the simplest way possible.
For the benefit of Fucking Morons(TM), my proposition that god is fudging the experiments to look as if quarks existed was intended to show the parent that in deciding that quarks exist, he was in fact using Occam's Razor, which he claims "Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science".
For example there is no room for tolerance as far as violating constitutional rights relating to religious tolerance. I'm not well informed on this, but I think that the founding fathers would seriously disapprove of banning all religion from public school.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down.
Care to show me? For example in Christianity, much of the bible is not literal, so first you must prove that something is literal before showing contradictions. Also, you have to assume that contradictions are always false (yes, that's an axiom). Anyhow, if you try to disprove religion here, anything useful you say will be lost in the ensuing flamewar, but I doubt you could do it. Millions have already tried and failed. I would recommend proving we exist first.
I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
Everything that has any bearing on the real world involves assumptions. Some, like the default logical axioms, and the scientific method, are quite useful, but they are assumptions nonetheless.
Logic is a human construct, but can be modelled by other things, eg computers.
"Logic" is a human construct based on properties of the physical universe as we know it, and as we understand them.
No, the axioms of logic are chosen so as to correspond to the actual universe or otherwise be useful. Logic is itself a construct, and not in the least bit related to the actual world. We use axioms cosistent with the real world so that logic will be useful in the real world, but logic itself will only tell us that if those axioms and any assumptions made are true, the conclusion is also true.
You can't apply logic to faith, because logic is a form of faith.
No, it's not. Logic tells you what will be true if the assumptions made are true. The default axioms are also assumptions, and if these are changed they are stated explicitly. It is too tiresome to state all the assumptions in very proof you do, so some often used assumptions (axioms) are often not stated.
Now, if ever you try to apply logic to the real world, you will be making assumptions, and will be basing everything you say on faith.
Logic will always supercede other faiths if they're analyzed logically, just like logic will always be superceded by religion, if explored religiously.
Huh?
Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another,...
And in fact, they don't disclude each other at all. There are some logic systems which allow contradictions, if that is what you were talking about. Anyhow, you would not find it as easy as you might think to prove a religion self-contradictory.
You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.
No, you only assume it does. While I think Occams Razor is very good for science, it is very much not infaliable. (And yes, you are most likely using Occam's Razor if you had more than one explanation for your events, eg "God is just fucking with the LHC" and "Quarks are deflecting the particles"). Even without that, the fact that experiments match a theory closely does not at all prove that the theory is correct, as you have seen in the case of every scientific theory that has been discarded (eg Newtonian physics). And lets not forget to add that you don't actually *know* that the scientists who have done experiments with quarks are not in some conspiracy, (or the builders of the LHC, if you have used it). but rather you base your so-called knowledge on faith in the integrity of the scientists and the fact that it would be nearly impossible to create and keep secret a conspiracy so large.
>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
Can you say "axiom"? Last I know axioms are based on faith (or was that usefulness?...anyways, not on facts). If you must know science does not give a steaming pile of shit for truth. Science is concerned with prediction, and usefulness. Or useful predictions. If you want to know about truth, talk to a philosopher. I doubt you can prove you even exist...
>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.
Quit talking bullshit. I propose that God is fucking around with your Large Hadron Collider, by deflecting particles as if quarks existed. This matches experiments exactly as if quarks actually do exist, so how can you say one theory is better than the other without Occam's Razor?
Monopoly: Cable is not a monopoly,...... You better have a very solid business plan and know what you're doing if you plant compete with an established company and convince a city to open the right of way to you.
However, with that said, if we are ever to advance beyond our current barbarisms, we must realize these works of religion for what they are...myths.
Yay! It's nice to hear from a fellow enlightened soul. Oh wait... how come you don't bother to prove either of those statements? Oh and if you want to complain about the wars done in god's name, you should see what has been done in the name of survival of the fittest. (Hint: it involves germans who thought they are the best race)
I think that a little encryption would solve that problem (at leat until said encryption is broken or bought). Encrypt the number, plus time, and only people with the key know who you are. As for myself, there's nothing that a little tinfoil wrapping can't solve:-)
If there will be an RFID embedded in it, and if so, what information will be accessible via that RFID
Um, you mean like just a uniquely identifiable number, and nothing else? Why in hell does it matter if they give out anything else? Uncle Sam would have no need for the cards to give anything but a number, which they can then match to your other info. I really doubt they would be stupid enough to allow others to collect your info when that would not benefit them and would piss off everyone.
Therefore: Violence: Terrific in fictional entertainment; sick and wrong in reality. Sex: Terrific in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment.
I think you meant Sex: sick and wrong in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment I'm pretty sure that parents wha don't want their kids watching sex on television would be terribly overjoyed if they are having sex in real life.
A car with a computer built into it is a fixed platform. For the most part, parts are predetermined by the manufacturer.
Maybe. How do you know?
You don't need an OS to have an execution environment if your software talks directly to the hardware. Many embedded systems (industrial controllers for example) run without an OS.
Operating System (OS)
The layer of software in a computer-based device that directly drives the computing hardware. The operating system manages memory, input and output devices, and computing resources. Middleware requires an underlying operating system in order to run on a set-top box.
In any case, by some definitions of operating system, a computer program that doesn't run on top of an operating system is an operating system unto itself. Disclaimer: the above is the first definition I found for operating system, not necessarily the best but it is one nonetheless.
It is worth pointing out the scale of this proejct for those who can't (or won't) accept it: cars are simpler than general purpose computers.
I fail to see how a car with a computer built into it, is simpler than a computer.
It is possible to create software that passes some reliability metric with a fixed hardware platform. A general purpose OS would be hard pressed to make that guarantee.
Um, you do realize that to run software, you need an OS?
There are accidents where you can do nothing to prevent them. So how common are these? With good practice, you can dodge pretty much any accident. Sure, there is the limit on reaction time, but accidents that you actually can't avoid are very few.
However with 4 that is not the case. You mean, that is unlikely.
Oh, and while going the speed limit causes problems, it is clear the law wants you do cause them, so play their game: drive exactly the speed limit. Let the other cars honk. Stay in the right lane and watch them drive by. Relax. Yea, just hope you don't get run into from behind by another car. Doing this will also cause many more people to change lanes, possibly causing an accident behind you. Bad driving endangers everyone, not just yourself.
P.S. cut the arrogance. I'd have to agree with this. It is really unlikely that you couldn't have done anything in those 4 accidents. Sure, maybe by law the other motorists were at fault, that doesn't mean it wasn't yours also. I'd say to take a safe driving course, if you haven't already.
That's why us open source programmers always throw out and completely rewrite our programs from version 2.6 to version 2.8
Re:more censorship, unimpressed
on
Google TrustRank
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Its not censorship. Google couldn't censor even if they wanted to. Rather than explaining to you what censorship means, let me just tell you that what Google is doing is siply doing their job better. I don't want to find spam when searching for anything, and neither does anyone else. Ergo, eliminating spam from the search results makes everyone (except spammers) happier.
You are mostly correct... except for the fact that we have unstable, testing, and stable branches. And I can tell you with much certainty, that bugs are less likely to slip into the stable branch with this testing than with a good million dollars worth of structured QA. So, when Microsoft creates an unstable branch, we will be pretty much equal.
Slashdot Mirror
And you obviously don't know the difference between creating new information and destroying the genes regulating the production of "anti-antibiotics".
>>Given normal observed scientific principles, complex systems tend to break down to smaller simpler systems over time without some external organizing force making it otherwise.
This is only true of a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system.
No, you are confused with thermal entropy. Things left to themselves deteriorate (decrease in order); gases will mix if placed in the same container, etc. There must be a driving force to go against deterioration, and that requires energy as well as the organizing force. That is why organisms have self-repair mechanisms, but die of old age anyways. I think the GP is refering to the fact (correct me if i'm wrong) that no one has ever observed mutations that come up with new, useful information, though there have been sereval mutations that destroy information (even if they are benefitial, like the one that regulates the amount of anti-penicillin some bacteria produce).
I'll go put on my asbestos underware now.
I don't care what they are called -- there are still assumptions in science. Perfectly valid assumptions, to be sure, and the best that can be gotten for what science does (find ways to predict what/how things happen in the real vorld).
How do you know that the scientific method will arrive at the truth? You don't! When has science ever been right? Always close, and getting closer, but old theories get replaced by newer, more accurate ones all the time. Not that science is useless; it produces accurate predictions about the real world. Yet if you seek truth, perhaps you should study philosophy. Though philosophy may have gotten pretty much nowhere in 2000 years, it is at least concerned with truth. Science is concerned with predicting and explaining the real world, in the simplest way possible.
For the benefit of Fucking Morons(TM), my proposition that god is fudging the experiments to look as if quarks existed was intended to show the parent that in deciding that quarks exist, he was in fact using Occam's Razor, which he claims "Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science".
For example there is no room for tolerance as far as violating constitutional rights relating to religious tolerance. I'm not well informed on this, but I think that the founding fathers would seriously disapprove of banning all religion from public school.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down.
Care to show me? For example in Christianity, much of the bible is not literal, so first you must prove that something is literal before showing contradictions. Also, you have to assume that contradictions are always false (yes, that's an axiom). Anyhow, if you try to disprove religion here, anything useful you say will be lost in the ensuing flamewar, but I doubt you could do it. Millions have already tried and failed. I would recommend proving we exist first.
I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
Everything that has any bearing on the real world involves assumptions. Some, like the default logical axioms, and the scientific method, are quite useful, but they are assumptions nonetheless.
Logic does NOT exist outside of the human mind.
Logic is a human construct, but can be modelled by other things, eg computers.
"Logic" is a human construct based on properties of the physical universe as we know it, and as we understand them.
No, the axioms of logic are chosen so as to correspond to the actual universe or otherwise be useful. Logic is itself a construct, and not in the least bit related to the actual world. We use axioms cosistent with the real world so that logic will be useful in the real world, but logic itself will only tell us that if those axioms and any assumptions made are true, the conclusion is also true.
You can't apply logic to faith, because logic is a form of faith.
No, it's not. Logic tells you what will be true if the assumptions made are true. The default axioms are also assumptions, and if these are changed they are stated explicitly. It is too tiresome to state all the assumptions in very proof you do, so some often used assumptions (axioms) are often not stated.
Now, if ever you try to apply logic to the real world, you will be making assumptions, and will be basing everything you say on faith.
Logic will always supercede other faiths if they're analyzed logically, just like logic will always be superceded by religion, if explored religiously.
Huh?
Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another,...
And in fact, they don't disclude each other at all. There are some logic systems which allow contradictions, if that is what you were talking about. Anyhow, you would not find it as easy as you might think to prove a religion self-contradictory.
Oh, ho! careful there.
...anyways, not on facts). If you must know science does not give a steaming pile of shit for truth. Science is concerned with prediction, and usefulness. Or useful predictions. If you want to know about truth, talk to a philosopher. I doubt you can prove you even exist...
You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.
No, you only assume it does. While I think Occams Razor is very good for science, it is very much not infaliable. (And yes, you are most likely using Occam's Razor if you had more than one explanation for your events, eg "God is just fucking with the LHC" and "Quarks are deflecting the particles"). Even without that, the fact that experiments match a theory closely does not at all prove that the theory is correct, as you have seen in the case of every scientific theory that has been discarded (eg Newtonian physics). And lets not forget to add that you don't actually *know* that the scientists who have done experiments with quarks are not in some conspiracy, (or the builders of the LHC, if you have used it). but rather you base your so-called knowledge on faith in the integrity of the scientists and the fact that it would be nearly impossible to create and keep secret a conspiracy so large.
>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
Can you say "axiom"? Last I know axioms are based on faith (or was that usefulness?
>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.
Quit talking bullshit. I propose that God is fucking around with your Large Hadron Collider, by deflecting particles as if quarks existed. This matches experiments exactly as if quarks actually do exist, so how can you say one theory is better than the other without Occam's Razor?
Monopoly: Cable is not a monopoly, ... ...
You better have a very solid business plan and know what you're doing if you plant compete with an established company and convince a city to open the right of way to you.
What's this you say about convincing city again?
However, with that said, if we are ever to advance beyond our current barbarisms, we must realize these works of religion for what they are...myths.
Yay! It's nice to hear from a fellow enlightened soul. Oh wait... how come you don't bother to prove either of those statements? Oh and if you want to complain about the wars done in god's name, you should see what has been done in the name of survival of the fittest. (Hint: it involves germans who thought they are the best race)
I think that a little encryption would solve that problem (at leat until said encryption is broken or bought). Encrypt the number, plus time, and only people with the key know who you are. As for myself, there's nothing that a little tinfoil wrapping can't solve :-)
do we really need to see it posted here, every time a firefox sploit is found?
Hell yes. I would lke to know when I need to update my browser.
If there will be an RFID embedded in it, and if so, what information will be accessible via that RFID
Um, you mean like just a uniquely identifiable number, and nothing else? Why in hell does it matter if they give out anything else? Uncle Sam would have no need for the cards to give anything but a number, which they can then match to your other info. I really doubt they would be stupid enough to allow others to collect your info when that would not benefit them and would piss off everyone.
Therefore:
Violence: Terrific in fictional entertainment; sick and wrong in reality.
Sex: Terrific in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment.
I think you meant
Sex: sick and wrong in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment
I'm pretty sure that parents wha don't want their kids watching sex on television would be terribly overjoyed if they are having sex in real life.
A car with a computer built into it is a fixed platform. For the most part, parts are predetermined by the manufacturer.
Maybe. How do you know?
You don't need an OS to have an execution environment if your software talks directly to the hardware. Many embedded systems (industrial controllers for example) run without an OS.
Operating System (OS)
The layer of software in a computer-based device that directly drives the computing hardware. The operating system manages memory, input and output devices, and computing resources. Middleware requires an underlying operating system in order to run on a set-top box.
In any case, by some definitions of operating system, a computer program that doesn't run on top of an operating system is an operating system unto itself. Disclaimer: the above is the first definition I found for operating system, not necessarily the best but it is one nonetheless.
It is worth pointing out the scale of this proejct for those who can't (or won't) accept it: cars are simpler than general purpose computers.
I fail to see how a car with a computer built into it, is simpler than a computer.
It is possible to create software that passes some reliability metric with a fixed hardware platform. A general purpose OS would be hard pressed to make that guarantee.
Um, you do realize that to run software, you need an OS?
There are accidents where you can do nothing to prevent them.
So how common are these? With good practice, you can dodge pretty much any accident. Sure, there is the limit on reaction time, but accidents that you actually can't avoid are very few.
However with 4 that is not the case.
You mean, that is unlikely.
Oh, and while going the speed limit causes problems, it is clear the law wants you do cause them, so play their game: drive exactly the speed limit. Let the other cars honk. Stay in the right lane and watch them drive by. Relax.
Yea, just hope you don't get run into from behind by another car. Doing this will also cause many more people to change lanes, possibly causing an accident behind you. Bad driving endangers everyone, not just yourself.
P.S. cut the arrogance.
I'd have to agree with this. It is really unlikely that you couldn't have done anything in those 4 accidents. Sure, maybe by law the other motorists were at fault, that doesn't mean it wasn't yours also. I'd say to take a safe driving course, if you haven't already.
Maybe 298 of those shots were warning shots?
That's why us open source programmers always throw out and completely rewrite our programs from version 2.6 to version 2.8
Its not censorship. Google couldn't censor even if they wanted to. Rather than explaining to you what censorship means, let me just tell you that what Google is doing is siply doing their job better. I don't want to find spam when searching for anything, and neither does anyone else. Ergo, eliminating spam from the search results makes everyone (except spammers) happier.
This seems incredibly fishy, as if it were a marketing ploy. At any rate, von Tetzchner will be smelling fishy very, very soon!
Almost. Be careful with "not", because "not insane"!="sane". (well, that actually depends on your definitions, but is true in the general case)
You are mostly correct... except for the fact that we have unstable, testing, and stable branches. And I can tell you with much certainty, that bugs are less likely to slip into the stable branch with this testing than with a good million dollars worth of structured QA. So, when Microsoft creates an unstable branch, we will be pretty much equal.
Any bets on when customers start suing Sony due to brain damege caused by blasting neurons with ultrasonic sounds?