"Everybody has an agenda. Everyone." --Banky Edwards
When I went to school I was what most people would classify as "conservative"*. I am very aware that Profs have their own points of view.
Professors are, at least in theory, highly skilled in their respective disciplines. The poster in question is, apparently, a Professor of Chemical Engineering. I think what you were picking up on was that I think this guy's field is relevant to the discussion at hand.
In short, no, that's not what I'm trying to say.
-Peter
* I'm really libertarian, but I didn't really know it at the time.
I would like to withdraw my post in this thread. Seeing this guy get bitch-slapped by a Chemical Engineering Professor with a four-digit user ID was way better than what I said!
This could be solved in a single day if the world's major oil corporations would embrace this new technology [. ..] Unfortunately there is more money in forcing people to deal with and dated and often poorly implemented technology [. ..]
Congratulations, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've seen some doozies.
Is it the oil companies job to put themselves out of business?
Do you really believe that this problem can be parallelized down to the point that it can be solved on a time-frame of less than years?*
Do you really think that oil companies are forcing you to eschew alternatives to gasoline? (Or do you think it is the job of the oil companies to yank their product from the market to force people to find an alternative?)
-Peter
*Hint: There is something on the order of one hundred million cars on the road in the US. Think you can retrofit and/or replace them all in a year?
Why can AC understand what I'm saying, but you can't. What if I want to run an open access point? If I want anybody to be able to use my AP, what business is it of anyone else's to say I can't?
And what is the point of using WEP/WPA and then giving all comers the key?
If you want to share your internet connection, that's why you can give out your key to whoever you want to be able to use it.
Outside of the fact that this sentence doesn't parse, are you saying that I should be required to encrypt my network, but allowed to post the key on my front door?
I just followed that link. That study is deeply flawed. "Hits" are judged subjectively. Even if we presume that the analyst is unbiased the human brain involuntarily searches for pattern and recognition.
In other words, I suspect I could reproduce the result by taking the same samples they used, but shuffling the target/output relationships and having them analyzed by a disinterested third party.
My point is that it is manifest that some people hit home runs. It is NOT manifest that some people can perceive beyond the normal senses (of which there are more than five).
Yes, I know that claims of telepathy require greater proof than claims of hitting a ball, but how is such proof to be gathered?
That's just my point. A theory that can't be tested isn't Science. I may believe that I can turn invisible so long as no one, including me, looks at me. But it will never be Science, since there is no testable condition that can be false.
Aren't you desparately trying to maintain your belief in a world that is ordered according to rules you understand?
Not at all. I am acutely aware of the inadequacy of my understanding of the Universe.
Now we know of baseball players who have hit home runs, but have any of them ever done so under laboratory conditions?
There is ample objective evidence of the existence of home runs. And I'll concede that psychic phenomena are more difficult to demonstrate. But something being hard to demonstrate doesn't make it true. It doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true either. But if it only manifests in unverifiable circumstances it seems infinitely more likely to be a product of Psychology than of Physics.
So then I looked for evidence. We have a ton of anecdotes in which a mother knows when a child is in danger. However, we have zero anecdotes in which a father knows.
Here is an alternate theory. Mothers tend to spend far more time with developing children than fathers. This contributes to a Psychological association; mother and child have a special relationship. We then latch on to stories that support this theory, and reject those that contradict it.
Here is another. Moms tend to worry a lot about their children becoming ill or sustaining an injury. Dads tend to worry more about crash test ratings and how to pay for Jill's orthodontia. If Moms fret far more it is only natural that bad news will more frequently arrive during a fretting session.
These theories have the distinct advantage of fitting what we already know about the Universe, and not relying on some untestable mechanism.
What you have done is wrapped typical superstitious gobbledy-gook in Scientific language. Using the phrase "Quantum entanglement" in place of "psychic link" does not make it any more Scientific.
The fact is that people have been desperately trying to demonstrate the sort of connection you are talking about for generations without result. You have just given an elaborate explanation of the mechanism for an effect that doesn't seem to exist.
Our world is a beautiful and awe-inspiring place. It doesn't need to be spiced with superstition and self-deception.
-Peter
PS: My sisters are twins. They often claim to have Psychic powers for the purpose of fucking with people.
I have been predicting for years that "enhancement leagues" will star popping up for many sports. It won't really get fun until synthetic skeletal and muscular enhancements become feasible.
Okay, one simple question. Do you assert that Josef Stalin, Jim Jones, and Saddam Hussein are "ordinary citizens"? Those are the only examples you have given, and that is the phrase you used.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheap! Compared to the cost of trusting your government.
-Peter
"Everybody has an agenda. Everyone." --Banky Edwards
When I went to school I was what most people would classify as "conservative"*. I am very aware that Profs have their own points of view.
Professors are, at least in theory, highly skilled in their respective disciplines. The poster in question is, apparently, a Professor of Chemical Engineering. I think what you were picking up on was that I think this guy's field is relevant to the discussion at hand.
In short, no, that's not what I'm trying to say.
-Peter
* I'm really libertarian, but I didn't really know it at the time.
I would like to withdraw my post in this thread. Seeing this guy get bitch-slapped by a Chemical Engineering Professor with a four-digit user ID was way better than what I said!
-Peter
Congratulations, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've seen some doozies.
-Peter
*Hint: There is something on the order of one hundred million cars on the road in the US. Think you can retrofit and/or replace them all in a year?
Why can AC understand what I'm saying, but you can't. What if I want to run an open access point? If I want anybody to be able to use my AP, what business is it of anyone else's to say I can't?
And what is the point of using WEP/WPA and then giving all comers the key?
-Peter
Outside of the fact that this sentence doesn't parse, are you saying that I should be required to encrypt my network, but allowed to post the key on my front door?
-Peter
He should do "Beter Off Dead" next, since he wants his two dollars.
-Peter
PS: Remeber kids, there is no "-1: I don't get it." moderation option.
I think his bigger problem is that he holds the common misapprehension that HTML/CSS/web browsers form a typesetting or page layout system.
If you are trying to do layout that is pixel-perfect on the web you are fucking up.
-Peter
I just followed that link. That study is deeply flawed. "Hits" are judged subjectively. Even if we presume that the analyst is unbiased the human brain involuntarily searches for pattern and recognition.
In other words, I suspect I could reproduce the result by taking the same samples they used, but shuffling the target/output relationships and having them analyzed by a disinterested third party.
-Peter
That's just my point. A theory that can't be tested isn't Science. I may believe that I can turn invisible so long as no one, including me, looks at me. But it will never be Science, since there is no testable condition that can be false.
-Peter
PS: I stole my example from "Mystery Men".
Not at all. I am acutely aware of the inadequacy of my understanding of the Universe.
There is ample objective evidence of the existence of home runs. And I'll concede that psychic phenomena are more difficult to demonstrate. But something being hard to demonstrate doesn't make it true. It doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true either. But if it only manifests in unverifiable circumstances it seems infinitely more likely to be a product of Psychology than of Physics.
-Peter
They're tall, blond, slender, and pretty. If that's what you're into.
As much as you may want them to fuck you, you would regret it if they fucked with you.
In any case, your desire to engage in an act of incest probably stems from your desire to fuck your mother.
-Peter
Here is an alternate theory. Mothers tend to spend far more time with developing children than fathers. This contributes to a Psychological association; mother and child have a special relationship. We then latch on to stories that support this theory, and reject those that contradict it.
Here is another. Moms tend to worry a lot about their children becoming ill or sustaining an injury. Dads tend to worry more about crash test ratings and how to pay for Jill's orthodontia. If Moms fret far more it is only natural that bad news will more frequently arrive during a fretting session.
These theories have the distinct advantage of fitting what we already know about the Universe, and not relying on some untestable mechanism.
What you have done is wrapped typical superstitious gobbledy-gook in Scientific language. Using the phrase "Quantum entanglement" in place of "psychic link" does not make it any more Scientific.
The fact is that people have been desperately trying to demonstrate the sort of connection you are talking about for generations without result. You have just given an elaborate explanation of the mechanism for an effect that doesn't seem to exist.
Our world is a beautiful and awe-inspiring place. It doesn't need to be spiced with superstition and self-deception.
-Peter
PS: My sisters are twins. They often claim to have Psychic powers for the purpose of fucking with people.
I have been predicting for years that "enhancement leagues" will star popping up for many sports. It won't really get fun until synthetic skeletal and muscular enhancements become feasible.
That and mech-football.
A geek can dream, anyway.
-Peter
I'm not a Doctor, but don't humans have two fucking thumbs?
I mouse with my left hand whenever my right wrist doesn't feel right.
[insert masturbation joke here]
-Peter
You know, they always tell you your hadron is "large", but that doesn't mean anything.
-Peter
Agreed.
My comment was meant to convey that neither is right.
-Peter
Damn it, Adam (and damn it, Lew). I finally took the big-l plunge a couple of months ago. And now you drop this on me.
Aaargh.
-Peter
Vote Libertarian.
-Peter
If he agreed to it why would they have to invoke the PATRIOT [sic] act.
-Peter
You missed my point spectacularly.
Of course the current Britannica doesn't say that. I was countering the OP's argument.
-Peter
This is precisely the reason that Brittanica still reports that, "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white[. . .]".
Oh, wait, human knowledge isn't static.
-Peter
I am the cheese?
That's a weird Elementary School flashback.
-Peter
Do you scrabble for absolute authority over a group of people? Do you think that the people you cite became powerful without doing so?
Also, do you think this is an ordinary definition of "ordinary"?
-Peter
Okay, one simple question. Do you assert that Josef Stalin, Jim Jones, and Saddam Hussein are "ordinary citizens"? Those are the only examples you have given, and that is the phrase you used.
-Peter