Instead, I'd rather they recognize that objectivity is impossible. Everyone has a bias - everyone, reporters included. Honest journalists, then, are upfront about their biases, so that readers can evaluate their reporting by considering their bias.
I agree with your point - it could be confusing - but I get rubbed the wrong way when you call it "our name." This is probably just habit on your part, but there's nothing about the word "Firebird" that you own. It was a car long before it was a relational database, and it was part of mythology long before it was a car.
At some point (magical or otherwise) 9.999999.... becomes 10 to everyone in the universe except a handful of barbarians who like to ruffle feathers.
No. 9.9... is equal to 10 only when there are an infinite number of 9s after the decimal. Otherwise, you can find a number inbetween the number you have and 10. We're talking mathematics here, not the application of mathematics. In some realms, people look at 4 and say "Eh, 4 is essentially 1."
Not so fast. There is no way to represent 9.9... in a computer. At some point in the hardware representation, the reptition has to stop. At that point, you have a finite number of 9s after the decimal, and it is not equivalent to 10.
What the hell is wrong with someone wanting a computer to be "easy to use"? Their computer is a tool. They want to spend time with other things (i.e., the cello), not learning their computer.
I read a discussion a while ago about whether or not 9.9... (that is, an infinite number of 9s after the decimal) is equal to 10. The consensus of the mathematicians in the group was that indeed it is. The explanation that I bought was that if 9.9... is not equal to 10, then there must be some number inbetween 9.9... and 10. But there is no such number. Hence, 9.9... must be equal to 10.
I'm about 6 foot, 165 lbs. I can bench press about 230-235 lbs, and I can run 2.25 miles in under 15 minutes, easy. (When I ran more often, I was able to do it in 12:30). I've been a vegetarian for over two years now.
Far as I know, that's still how the gravitational constant is measured. According to my astrophysics professor, our value for that constant is one of the least accurate.
That's not what I get out of "new rules." There are assumptions built into Newton's equations, and there are assumptions built into Einstein's equations. Looking at the equations themselves - the rules - you can't necessarily discern what these assumptions are. These assumptions themselves - the "worldviews" - have implications as well.
I am familiar with this. But in this case, the more accurate description (energy is transformed into matter)is just as simple, and less likely to be confusing.
If you say that matter is transformed into energy, a student with no idea of how this works would be more confused.
How is that more confusing than stating that when matter is "destroyed," energy is magically "created"?
Do you even remember what your junior high science book was like? And if you do, don't you think your impression as a junior high student will impact your judgement of how good it was?
College freshmen textbooks also give the impression that science is static. It wasn't until I got to my higher level physics classes that I had an appreciation for the fact that there's a lot we don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
You talked to him that long? I start hanging up the phone before I've even finished saying "Not interested."
Take any functional (Lisp, Scheme, Haskell) or logic (Prolog) language.
I don't think HTML is a programming language, but not all programming languages have the concepts of states, variables and assignment.
Instead, I'd rather they recognize that objectivity is impossible. Everyone has a bias - everyone, reporters included. Honest journalists, then, are upfront about their biases, so that readers can evaluate their reporting by considering their bias.
The keyboard was not designed to interface with a computer.
Had I not seen that sentence in the context of this story, I would have thought he was going to a conference on Pontiac Firebirds.
I agree with your point - it could be confusing - but I get rubbed the wrong way when you call it "our name." This is probably just habit on your part, but there's nothing about the word "Firebird" that you own. It was a car long before it was a relational database, and it was part of mythology long before it was a car.
It was released under a modified BSD license.
Great observation, I'm glad you made it.
However, I was referring to the "every vegetarian I have ever seen has been a pale 90lb stick boy." I am lean, but am in no way a 90 lbs. stick boy.
At some point (magical or otherwise) 9.999999.... becomes 10 to everyone in the universe except a handful of barbarians who like to ruffle feathers.
No. 9.9... is equal to 10 only when there are an infinite number of 9s after the decimal. Otherwise, you can find a number inbetween the number you have and 10. We're talking mathematics here, not the application of mathematics. In some realms, people look at 4 and say "Eh, 4 is essentially 1."
Not so fast. There is no way to represent 9.9... in a computer. At some point in the hardware representation, the reptition has to stop. At that point, you have a finite number of 9s after the decimal, and it is not equivalent to 10.
Now, we have cosmological evidence that the entire universe goes on forever
We do? Last I heard, the WMAP study said the radius of the observable universe is 13.7 billion light years.
What the hell is wrong with someone wanting a computer to be "easy to use"? Their computer is a tool. They want to spend time with other things (i.e., the cello), not learning their computer.
I read a discussion a while ago about whether or not 9.9... (that is, an infinite number of 9s after the decimal) is equal to 10. The consensus of the mathematicians in the group was that indeed it is. The explanation that I bought was that if 9.9... is not equal to 10, then there must be some number inbetween 9.9... and 10. But there is no such number. Hence, 9.9... must be equal to 10.
I'm about 6 foot, 165 lbs. I can bench press about 230-235 lbs, and I can run 2.25 miles in under 15 minutes, easy. (When I ran more often, I was able to do it in 12:30). I've been a vegetarian for over two years now.
My ass that saves time. What that shirt does is communicate two things: 1) "I think I'm good with computers," and 2) "I think that makes me special."
Dumbing down? His concern was with a comment that had to do with your percpection, not the science of the article.
Far as I know, that's still how the gravitational constant is measured. According to my astrophysics professor, our value for that constant is one of the least accurate.
That's not what I get out of "new rules." There are assumptions built into Newton's equations, and there are assumptions built into Einstein's equations. Looking at the equations themselves - the rules - you can't necessarily discern what these assumptions are. These assumptions themselves - the "worldviews" - have implications as well.
I am familiar with this. But in this case, the more accurate description (energy is transformed into matter)is just as simple, and less likely to be confusing.
If you say that matter is transformed into energy, a student with no idea of how this works would be more confused.
How is that more confusing than stating that when matter is "destroyed," energy is magically "created"?
Do you even remember what your junior high science book was like? And if you do, don't you think your impression as a junior high student will impact your judgement of how good it was?
There's more to it than just new rules. Einstein's formulation had implications about the universe that were different from what Newton had assumed.
The quote is not from the woman's book, but from a conventional science textbook.
Which means the above is currently being taught to middle school students. Sigh.
College freshmen textbooks also give the impression that science is static. It wasn't until I got to my higher level physics classes that I had an appreciation for the fact that there's a lot we don't know.