I actually don't understand the importance of not forgetting. It seems like a nice enough thing to say, but I want a genuine justification for why it should be remembered, as opposed to mourned and then moved past? I know this sounds incredibly cynical, but I think the United States penchant for remembering tragedies and not achievements is unhealthy for the national psyche in the long run.
The point of the delayed quantum eraser experiment is that specifically the knowledge of which way a particle is going changes it's behavior. Meaning if it's known, one thing happens, and then if you change the situation such that that knowledge is lost, another happens. The implication of that is that there simply isn't knowledge of which path the particle takes.
The direct implication of that fact is that there is no entity that knows everything that is connected to the universe. I acknowledge that you enjoy being wrong, and as long as you don't ever tell anyone else to believe, I'm ok with your position. And I know I sound self-righteous. I choose to be that way in the face of a world where 95% of people actively choose to believe things that are either mostly or completely in defiance of what's actually real and observable.
Actually, they did research, and found in the US, at least, that this is exactly what most religious people believe. A large majority(though not huge) of people who identify as Christian, believe literally everything in the bible is completely true.
As to your main point, that you can't rebut Christianity on the basis of what the bible says: it would be very silly to go around rebutting Christianity on what the bible DOESN'T say, wouldn't it?
They do contradict the existence of "God" as far as most definitions go. Unless you could describe how, say, omniscience could co-exist with a universe where the delayed quantum eraser experiment works the way it does.
Now we're playing this game. Your comment got "informative" and "insightful" upmods. Which means people thought it was introducing some useful fact. It wasn't, you're taking the fact that other people are basically ignorant as a meaningful measure of whether you were making a good point. That's incredibly dense of you.
So, what you're saying is literally something I acknowledged directly in my post. That doesn't clarify and help me understand what crucial skill set is missing. It always seems like when I'm discussing global warming, there's always two conversations going on. The one I see, and one that seems to exist in a parallel universe where I said something different. It's really quite odd.
Please, I'm begging you, help me understand what I'm actually missing, not fairly basic data I already am familiar with.
Could you clarify? Is there some sort of skillset that you feel is lacking in the observations of people who would identify AGW as factual? I, of course, don't mean "people in the street" kind of way, but people making public arguments about AGW?
What I observe in debates I've seen are people saying things like changes in temperature exist in a natural cycle, we've seen them before, and that current temperatures are not unprecedented in nature. But these observations neglect the incredibly high second derivative of temperature over time in the past century or two.
Shhh. It's hard enough to get deniers(I hate that term, is there an less biased term that doesn't give them undue credibility like "skeptic" does) to understand the concept of a second derivative, and its importance to the whole thing. Involving diff-eq is just going to lose even more.
I'm not sure what you mean by "whole os". The entire kernel is basically C, but technically C++ like Microsoft likes. Substantial amounts of things that come on a windows disc these days are written in C#.
Well, OK, that's fair. But I think anyone getting as far as identifying the independent and dependent variables is likely to have generated a falsifiable hypothesis along the way. There is essentially no way to expect a relationship between measurable factors without an implicit falsifiability being present.
Ok, those are all moderately to completely valid criticisms of the United States and its citizens. Didn't answer my question.
Is it an appropriate reason to oppose these sanctions? Hypocrisy is bad, we all know that. That doesn't address the validity/appropriateness of this particular action.
Scientifically, something is proven if it's effectively demonstrated repeatedly, with no unexpected effects from independent variables. This is a hard bar to rise to, and takes decades to do. Common law proof, is "demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt". That is to say, accounting for every practical possibility, is it certain that a certain person committed a certain crime.
These are critically different, and neither standard is very cross-applicable. Applying the common law standards to science would cause us not to examine unreasonable sounding possibilities, like the particle wave duality, for example. It relies far too much on our day to day expectations of how things work.
Applying scientific standards of proof to criminal law makes no sense, because there's simply no way to control for all relevant variables. They are different, and very much should be.
Ok, and coming back to what I originally posted, that's a grading problem, not a nature of the test problem, but I believe there is an underlying problem in what they are trying to test.
Could you clarify? What do student-teacher ratios have to do with method of testing? I can see some very loose connections there, but perhaps you have a clearer picture than I do.
I didn't MAKE a point. I asked a question with the hope of clarity. Do you oppose the idea of imposing sanctions just because the entity doing the imposition is hypocritical?
That's different than well, anything that you responded to at all. Do you think I'm defending the current and past actions of the U.S. government vis a vis its own citizens' rights? I don't get it.
The ability to "breed" chemicals that bond to specific proteins sounds like it could cure a boatload of previously incurable diseases. I'm not sure that is what the researchers are going for, but to me, this sounds like "miracle cure" type stuff.
Bacteria/virus/tumor cells/prions go in, perfectly tailored antibody components come out. Attach some highly reactive oxides/chlorides and you have a targeted antibiotic. At least that's how the science fiction version of this would go.
I remember that slogan. Not too long ago even. Before that it was "Think different" and buy the most common mp3 player on the planet. I dislike apple because I dislike marketing, and Apple is like an avatar of marketing; the essence of style over substance given form.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, so the question is: what alternatives to slashdot exist now that they've decided terrible is the way to be.
Reddit is too memey, digg is a failure, and many of the actual magazines have terrible discussion formulas.
We need an alternative. As soon as I find a decent one, I can cut all ties back here.
I actually don't understand the importance of not forgetting. It seems like a nice enough thing to say, but I want a genuine justification for why it should be remembered, as opposed to mourned and then moved past? I know this sounds incredibly cynical, but I think the United States penchant for remembering tragedies and not achievements is unhealthy for the national psyche in the long run.
The point of the delayed quantum eraser experiment is that specifically the knowledge of which way a particle is going changes it's behavior. Meaning if it's known, one thing happens, and then if you change the situation such that that knowledge is lost, another happens. The implication of that is that there simply isn't knowledge of which path the particle takes.
The direct implication of that fact is that there is no entity that knows everything that is connected to the universe. I acknowledge that you enjoy being wrong, and as long as you don't ever tell anyone else to believe, I'm ok with your position. And I know I sound self-righteous. I choose to be that way in the face of a world where 95% of people actively choose to believe things that are either mostly or completely in defiance of what's actually real and observable.
I've even heard of a case where people were brainwashed into capitalizing entirely random words.
Actually, they did research, and found in the US, at least, that this is exactly what most religious people believe. A large majority(though not huge) of people who identify as Christian, believe literally everything in the bible is completely true.
As to your main point, that you can't rebut Christianity on the basis of what the bible says: it would be very silly to go around rebutting Christianity on what the bible DOESN'T say, wouldn't it?
They do contradict the existence of "God" as far as most definitions go. Unless you could describe how, say, omniscience could co-exist with a universe where the delayed quantum eraser experiment works the way it does.
Now we're playing this game. Your comment got "informative" and "insightful" upmods. Which means people thought it was introducing some useful fact. It wasn't, you're taking the fact that other people are basically ignorant as a meaningful measure of whether you were making a good point. That's incredibly dense of you.
I'm afraid that seriously is just how I prefer to take things. It wasn't much of a joke, either.
No, I was referring to "making a serious claim about the nature of things". But that's fair.
So, what you're saying is literally something I acknowledged directly in my post. That doesn't clarify and help me understand what crucial skill set is missing. It always seems like when I'm discussing global warming, there's always two conversations going on. The one I see, and one that seems to exist in a parallel universe where I said something different. It's really quite odd.
Please, I'm begging you, help me understand what I'm actually missing, not fairly basic data I already am familiar with.
Could you clarify? Is there some sort of skillset that you feel is lacking in the observations of people who would identify AGW as factual? I, of course, don't mean "people in the street" kind of way, but people making public arguments about AGW?
What I observe in debates I've seen are people saying things like changes in temperature exist in a natural cycle, we've seen them before, and that current temperatures are not unprecedented in nature. But these observations neglect the incredibly high second derivative of temperature over time in the past century or two.
Shhh. It's hard enough to get deniers(I hate that term, is there an less biased term that doesn't give them undue credibility like "skeptic" does) to understand the concept of a second derivative, and its importance to the whole thing. Involving diff-eq is just going to lose even more.
So is Lisp in some sort of state of perpetual undeath then?
I'm not sure what you mean by "whole os". The entire kernel is basically C, but technically C++ like Microsoft likes. Substantial amounts of things that come on a windows disc these days are written in C#.
Am I right?
Well, OK, that's fair. But I think anyone getting as far as identifying the independent and dependent variables is likely to have generated a falsifiable hypothesis along the way. There is essentially no way to expect a relationship between measurable factors without an implicit falsifiability being present.
Ok, those are all moderately to completely valid criticisms of the United States and its citizens. Didn't answer my question.
Is it an appropriate reason to oppose these sanctions? Hypocrisy is bad, we all know that. That doesn't address the validity/appropriateness of this particular action.
Scientifically, something is proven if it's effectively demonstrated repeatedly, with no unexpected effects from independent variables. This is a hard bar to rise to, and takes decades to do.
Common law proof, is "demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt". That is to say, accounting for every practical possibility, is it certain that a certain person committed a certain crime.
These are critically different, and neither standard is very cross-applicable. Applying the common law standards to science would cause us not to examine unreasonable sounding possibilities, like the particle wave duality, for example. It relies far too much on our day to day expectations of how things work.
Applying scientific standards of proof to criminal law makes no sense, because there's simply no way to control for all relevant variables. They are different, and very much should be.
Ok, and coming back to what I originally posted, that's a grading problem, not a nature of the test problem, but I believe there is an underlying problem in what they are trying to test.
Could you clarify? What do student-teacher ratios have to do with method of testing? I can see some very loose connections there, but perhaps you have a clearer picture than I do.
I didn't MAKE a point. I asked a question with the hope of clarity. Do you oppose the idea of imposing sanctions just because the entity doing the imposition is hypocritical?
That's different than well, anything that you responded to at all. Do you think I'm defending the current and past actions of the U.S. government vis a vis its own citizens' rights? I don't get it.
So, do you oppose the sanctions on the grounds that they're hypocritical, then? Or are you just happy that you can point out the hypocrisy?
Which should reveal that the problem is with the test, not with the mechanism of grading.
The ability to "breed" chemicals that bond to specific proteins sounds like it could cure a boatload of previously incurable diseases. I'm not sure that is what the researchers are going for, but to me, this sounds like "miracle cure" type stuff.
Bacteria/virus/tumor cells/prions go in, perfectly tailored antibody components come out. Attach some highly reactive oxides/chlorides and you have a targeted antibiotic. At least that's how the science fiction version of this would go.
I remember that slogan. Not too long ago even. Before that it was "Think different" and buy the most common mp3 player on the planet. I dislike apple because I dislike marketing, and Apple is like an avatar of marketing; the essence of style over substance given form.