If you broaden your definition of science to include all fields of human investigation, sure.
Science is a method. When the only results of the method you can generate iare cloudy statistical results that may, or may not, apply to any specific instance you actually need to, or are trying to, understand, then you have not done anything useful or new, scientifically speaking.
On the other hand, if you can convince some moneyed party to part with same in following your cloudy statistical results, why then you do have something useful. This is the basis for every psychology shingle ever hung out, and every economic theory more meta than the math for interest and debt put on the table (which is really more simple math than economics anyway.) But you still have not done worthy science.
Psychology is a science, although a fairly new one.
Yes? Freud or Erikson? Psychosocial or psychosexual or psychoanalytic? Or primal screaming? Regression therapy and "repressed memories"? Momma's skirts and "everything is sex"? Standardized personality tests that are based on mid 20th century, middle-American groups of minimal sample size?
The only thing really "scientific" about psychology is its misuse of statistics to apply a behavioral theory that has some statistical traction, to the individual who may not fall into that theory's particular use of metaphor.
Psychology must start from this basis: Knowing how the mind works. But the fact is, we don't know how the mind works.
Ergo, psychology is something else. IMHO, that something else is significantly more akin to religion (by which I mean formalized superstition) than it is to a science that actually produces worthwhile conclusions.
Let's review science in a nutshell: Idea, prediction, test, data, peer review resulting in reliable, consensual, repeatable results... or right back to drawing board, folks.
Now psychology: a veritable cornucopia of ideas, consequent prediction failures, massively disjoint results, outliers and exceptions everywhere, fad driven and reminiscent of nothing so much as a pendulum that with a colony of rabid, highly kinetic squirrels nesting on the pendulum.
Science? No. The word we use for this kind of nonsense is "bunkum."
McCoy: It's dead, Jim. Spock: Fascinating. Scott: I cannae get ye any mor power! Rand: [flashes legs, wiggles] Uhura: Transmission lost, sir. Chekov: It's a Russian invention. Sulu: Captain, stay away from the controls! If you touch them, we'll be destroyed! Kirk: There’s another way to survive (proceeds to write TekWar)
"If I can get on that stage and say the rocket can't get off the ground, and we have to change this dynamic first," the narrative shifts in a way that the leading candidates can't address.
Yes, that's precisely why he can't get on the stage. The entire circus is predicated on the illusion that the rocket can get off the ground. Circus de-bunkers are not, pretty much by definition, members of the circus.
Although I hope to heck it's smarter than "Alexa" is. The way Alexa deals with human language is... pitifully simplistic. The speech recognition itself is good, but from there on, it's a morass of completely naive "if THIS IS SPOKEN then DO THAT" statements. No smarts whatsoever.
IOW, if the recog is...
"turn on the lights"...but the user says...
"turn on my lights"...you get nothing.
So you add it...
"turn on the lights" "turn on my lights"...but the user says...
"lights on, please"...you get nothing.
Developing an application is literally an exercise in guessing everything a user might say that is relevant to your thing, and then providing an appropriate response for that voice input. Anything you didn't "can" in advance won't work. There is no provision for any kind of actual understanding of what is being said, no grammar handling, no understanding of anything, really. It just matches speech-to-text input with canned phrases.
It's more like "give me convenience or your competitor will"
Siri. Cortana. Echo. S-voice. Google voice. etc.
Pretty sure that at this point, it's either get with it, or be left behind. And yes, "behind" is the right word. Services will begin to be delivered by default this way, count on it — if you don't have access, you won't have the services, either.
The article on that page reports more OS vulnerabilities for OSX and other Apple products.
Generally speaking, that's not the attack surface most people need to worry about.
The surfaces that most attacks are focused upon are Internet-facing. So, the web browser (IE has the most vulnerabilities) on one end, and the web server on the other; the web server, in addition, provides more vulnerable surfaces in the form of applications like wordpress and so on.
The article you linked to is not well written at all. The comments on it reveal numerous flaws in its conclusions.
So when you show some alien that you know a constant, you also have to show them that you actually intend to show it to them.
No. All you have to do is show intentional order. Numbers do that well before they take on roles as constants. receiving 1,2,3,4,5,6... would wake up any of our scientists. In any base.
Until we can determine that we're hearing something intentional -- which a certain (fairly minimal) amount of order is sufficient to do -- how good at math and physics some aliens are isn't much of an issue.
Although, of course, if 11110011011001 (11 1 100 1 101 1001) was resolvable on some SETI person's printout or display, I'm pretty sure the top of their heads would blow right off.:)
Yes. Perhaps they should first concentrate on students achieving at least a reasonable standard of reading comprehension, writing (and I know I'm going out on a limb here) grammar and spelling competence.
Instead of passing students through like shit in a goose regardless of performance.
No, wait. Is this one of those "evolving language" things where "editor", which used to mean "person who corrects prose" is now the word for "person who screws up prose?"
This could all be my fault.
Although I should point out that in the current social mindset, "my fault" actually means "their fault" or "your fault" or at a minimum, "someone else's fault."
It's ok. I realize wordplay makes a -->hash<-- out of many people's thought processes, and they can't do something as simple as moderate well in that kind of state. Not offended at all; there's no -->collision<-- between my feelings and clueless moderation of my posts. It strikes me as sad when other people's posts are similarly abused by moderators who can't -->look up<-- long enough to see what's being said, but hey, that's slashdot, where anyone can moderate for any reason, or no reason, or the wrong reason. And does. As we have seen here. There's no -->link<-- between the -->list<-- of who can moderate and who can "get it." Even when you provide the right -->pointers.<--
It's very much of like sarcasm. Without tags, some people are just lost. But the tags take part of the fun out of sarcasm, wordplay and just about every other form of humor, so I tend not to signal that hard, except as in the first paragraph here, when it is certain I'm dealing with someone who just "isn't going to get it" otherwise. Sarcasm or humor, wordplay or not. But... if you don't get it, you don't get it. S'ok. Regrettable, but still ok. I still had fun writing it.:)
PS:
o hash - SHA1 related term, also means confusion in the mind o collision - hash related term, also means one thing disturbing another o look up (lookup) - hash related term, also means change one's point of view o link+list - technique used in hashing to resolve algorithmic collisions, also a joining of items o pointers - variables which can be used to index a hash, also an indication to something
Slashdot Mirror
Science is a method. When the only results of the method you can generate iare cloudy statistical results that may, or may not, apply to any specific instance you actually need to, or are trying to, understand, then you have not done anything useful or new, scientifically speaking.
On the other hand, if you can convince some moneyed party to part with same in following your cloudy statistical results, why then you do have something useful. This is the basis for every psychology shingle ever hung out, and every economic theory more meta than the math for interest and debt put on the table (which is really more simple math than economics anyway.) But you still have not done worthy science.
Yes? Freud or Erikson? Psychosocial or psychosexual or psychoanalytic? Or primal screaming? Regression therapy and "repressed memories"? Momma's skirts and "everything is sex"? Standardized personality tests that are based on mid 20th century, middle-American groups of minimal sample size?
The only thing really "scientific" about psychology is its misuse of statistics to apply a behavioral theory that has some statistical traction, to the individual who may not fall into that theory's particular use of metaphor.
Psychology must start from this basis: Knowing how the mind works. But the fact is, we don't know how the mind works.
Ergo, psychology is something else. IMHO, that something else is significantly more akin to religion (by which I mean formalized superstition) than it is to a science that actually produces worthwhile conclusions.
Let's review science in a nutshell: Idea, prediction, test, data, peer review resulting in reliable, consensual, repeatable results... or right back to drawing board, folks.
Now psychology: a veritable cornucopia of ideas, consequent prediction failures, massively disjoint results, outliers and exceptions everywhere, fad driven and reminiscent of nothing so much as a pendulum that with a colony of rabid, highly kinetic squirrels nesting on the pendulum.
Science? No. The word we use for this kind of nonsense is "bunkum."
Precisely this. For my part, this fairly obvious fact is highly likely to account for why inflation is never allowed to stop. Cynical? You bet.
You do understand that $190,000 in 1966 was equivalant to well over a million dollars today, right?
McCoy: It's dead, Jim.
Spock: Fascinating.
Scott: I cannae get ye any mor power!
Rand: [flashes legs, wiggles]
Uhura: Transmission lost, sir.
Chekov: It's a Russian invention.
Sulu: Captain, stay away from the controls! If you touch them, we'll be destroyed!
Kirk: There’s another way to survive (proceeds to write TekWar)
People run over other people with cars every day. So why not do it yourself?
Could it be because it's a really bad idea, same as the proposition you are putting forth with your question?
Truly a conundrum for the ages. :)
From TFS:
Yes, that's precisely why he can't get on the stage. The entire circus is predicated on the illusion that the rocket can get off the ground. Circus de-bunkers are not, pretty much by definition, members of the circus.
c'mon, man. Recycling is trendy.
Don't be a piker, man. It makes you stick out, even if it does make you seem sharp at the same time. Get my point?
Well, unless you like being dead, yes, it is. :)
Same as Amazon's Echo/Alexa.
Although I hope to heck it's smarter than "Alexa" is. The way Alexa deals with human language is... pitifully simplistic. The speech recognition itself is good, but from there on, it's a morass of completely naive "if THIS IS SPOKEN then DO THAT" statements. No smarts whatsoever.
IOW, if the recog is...
"turn on the lights" ...but the user says...
"turn on my lights" ...you get nothing.
So you add it...
"turn on the lights" ...but the user says...
"turn on my lights"
"lights on, please" ...you get nothing.
Developing an application is literally an exercise in guessing everything a user might say that is relevant to your thing, and then providing an appropriate response for that voice input. Anything you didn't "can" in advance won't work. There is no provision for any kind of actual understanding of what is being said, no grammar handling, no understanding of anything, really. It just matches speech-to-text input with canned phrases.
Is that your angle?
It's more like "give me convenience or your competitor will"
Siri. Cortana. Echo. S-voice. Google voice. etc.
Pretty sure that at this point, it's either get with it, or be left behind. And yes, "behind" is the right word. Services will begin to be delivered by default this way, count on it — if you don't have access, you won't have the services, either.
The thing is, one person's "pointless" is another person's "I get it."
Get it?
The article on that page reports more OS vulnerabilities for OSX and other Apple products.
Generally speaking, that's not the attack surface most people need to worry about.
The surfaces that most attacks are focused upon are Internet-facing. So, the web browser (IE has the most vulnerabilities) on one end, and the web server on the other; the web server, in addition, provides more vulnerable surfaces in the form of applications like wordpress and so on.
The article you linked to is not well written at all. The comments on it reveal numerous flaws in its conclusions.
You might even let people select the mod system they prefer, eh?
Oh. Man. Awesome :)
But where is modtard when you need them?
No. All you have to do is show intentional order. Numbers do that well before they take on roles as constants. receiving 1,2,3,4,5,6... would wake up any of our scientists. In any base.
Until we can determine that we're hearing something intentional -- which a certain (fairly minimal) amount of order is sufficient to do -- how good at math and physics some aliens are isn't much of an issue.
Although, of course, if 11110011011001 (11 1 100 1 101 1001) was resolvable on some SETI person's printout or display, I'm pretty sure the top of their heads would blow right off. :)
Yes. Perhaps they should first concentrate on students achieving at least a reasonable standard of reading comprehension, writing (and I know I'm going out on a limb here) grammar and spelling competence.
Instead of passing students through like shit in a goose regardless of performance.
I just want to take a moment to applaud edittard for stepping in right when needed.
Kudos, sir or madam, kudos.
No, wait. Is this one of those "evolving language" things where "editor", which used to mean "person who corrects prose" is now the word for "person who screws up prose?"
This could all be my fault.
Although I should point out that in the current social mindset, "my fault" actually means "their fault" or "your fault" or at a minimum, "someone else's fault."
My effort significant effort is effectively effortless. It's the effort effect at work. So there.
"editors" -- I don't think that word means what the slashdot "editors" think it means.
You just need to add a linked list, so collisions are resolvable.
Not to worry. :)
It's ok. I realize wordplay makes a -->hash<-- out of many people's thought processes, and they can't do something as simple as moderate well in that kind of state. Not offended at all; there's no -->collision<-- between my feelings and clueless moderation of my posts. It strikes me as sad when other people's posts are similarly abused by moderators who can't -->look up<-- long enough to see what's being said, but hey, that's slashdot, where anyone can moderate for any reason, or no reason, or the wrong reason. And does. As we have seen here. There's no -->link<-- between the -->list<-- of who can moderate and who can "get it." Even when you provide the right -->pointers.<--
It's very much of like sarcasm. Without tags, some people are just lost. But the tags take part of the fun out of sarcasm, wordplay and just about every other form of humor, so I tend not to signal that hard, except as in the first paragraph here, when it is certain I'm dealing with someone who just "isn't going to get it" otherwise. Sarcasm or humor, wordplay or not. But... if you don't get it, you don't get it. S'ok. Regrettable, but still ok. I still had fun writing it. :)
PS:
o hash - SHA1 related term, also means confusion in the mind
o collision - hash related term, also means one thing disturbing another
o look up (lookup) - hash related term, also means change one's point of view
o link+list - technique used in hashing to resolve algorithmic collisions, also a joining of items
o pointers - variables which can be used to index a hash, also an indication to something
Bonus study material:
o acrostic technique
No, no. No need for thanks. Glad to help you out. :)