There was a race between the US and the USSR, but until Buzz Armstrong set his foot on the surface of the Moon, USSR had taken pretty much all the trophies: first man in space, etc (the list of USSR "space firsts" is quite long -- if you're the first then who gives a shit about the fact that your technology isn't really that great?). Sending a man to the Moon was pretty much the last chance to score a PR victory for the US.
Actually, Gödel only proved the incompleteness of Arithmetics. This, however, was considered a pretty good sign of what formal systems are capable of. Another similar result was Alfred Tarski's truth definition, which states pretty much what you just said.
An interesting take on these incompleteness theories is Jaakko Hintikka's book "The Principles of Mathematics Revisited." He states, among other things, that Gödel only proved the deductive incompleteness of Arithmetics, but his result is really not that important as it says nothing about the descriptive completeness of systems. His (Hintikka's) point is, that deductive completeness (the possibility to deduce all the possible sentences from given axioms), something that mathematicians had always strived for, isn't really that important; more important is a system's descriptive power.
Under a microscope or in a telescope? Under a microscope, it looks like a stuffed raincloud. But in a telescope (Hubble would do quite nicely, except that it's pointed the wrong way), it looks like... yes, you guessed it, it looks like a pancake!
Well, it probably matters a lot for someone to point their finger at the Z3 and say: "See, they did it first, you lost." Something to do with patriotism or national pride, i don't know. But it's really not of much interest. It's just as pointless as arguing over who really invented the telephone, Bell or the other guy who was half an hour late to the patent office.
What'd be more interesting, however, would be to compare the ways these guys took to get there. Whether the function of the machine made any difference, etc.
Who cares who was first... what really matters is what we do now and in the future.
The Estonian TOM. You probably don't speak Estonian, but the idea is, that people post ideas and let other people comment on them. If the idea is deemed to be good, then a slightly edited version of it will be voted on; if the thing gets enough votes, it will be passed on to the government. You can observe the later phases of the legislative process, too.
Or at least that's the theory. I haven't used it, but as far as i know, it's just as meaningful as political discussions on Slashdot.
There is no way for me to see the journals of all Slashdotters.
Yes there is. Click "older stuff"; in the search thingie, click the "Journals" radio button and then "Search," without typing anything in the text box. This brings up all the journal entries, starting from the latest. Not as convenient as a slashbox would be, but at least it's there.
Well, i'm quite sure there are many people in the world with selective memories, and by far not all of them are lefties.
The reason why the left supports Castro and China is, that both China and Cuba are supposedly communist countries. America is capitalist and capitalism, as you may know, is evil (capitalists were the ones who killed indians, you know), so naturally they root for the communist countries. Their support for Cuba is probably mostly about this guilt -- the US having supported the previous dictators'n'all. The thing with China is a bit different. The Chinese was the "good" communists, as they didn't get along with the Soviet Union. Chairman Mao was very popular amongst the intelligentsia in the 1960's -- i don't think they understood what was really going on in China. All that was important for them was, that the cultural revolution sent university professors to work in the rice fields.
I really don't know what has changed since then (the latest Western book on "theories of revolution" that i've read is from the year 1973), but i guess not much. The intelligentsia still hate the West, blaming it for all the bad things that have happened. And in a sense, they're right, as the roots of many of the problems encountered in the world today are in one way or another in the constant expansion of the Western world, but saying that only the West (or only the US) is to blame for all this sounds, IMHO, kinda biblical. Blaming the Israelis is doubly so.
I'm mostly replying to the AC, but if one is to believe John Deely, then semiotics is the mathematics of the future (aside from being the most important thing ever discovered (tm)). So you may still have a future:7
You know what the best part is? That Western Europe was probably saved from invasion only because Ogodai, the Mongol leader, died, and the disarray his departure caused in the empire forced the Mongols to retreat..
I plead ignorance on the minutia of international law, but I am pretty sure that Geneva and Diplomatic immunity are not aspects of international law.
Actually, these are pretty much exactly the things that are meant when someone says "international law." But you're right in that these "laws" are so much different from ordinary laws that it's still disputed whether they deserve to be called "law" at all...
It propagates the myth that there is such a thing as "international law"
There isn't? Then how come there's such a thing as "diplomatic immunity?" Is it just my imagination? Or all those other things i was told about in my introductory law course? Are you telling me that these are all myths, and that in reality, everyone does what they will?
Have you ever heard the terms 'democracy' and 'civil disobedience'? They basically mean that if the government does any of the things you just described, you remove the said government from power.
But protecting every alpaca from being smuggled out of the country isn't even the point. The point of this program seems to be to keep the "best" (best from whose point of view?) alpacas in. They are only going to tag 900 animals, as they assume that the smugglers won't be interested in the other three million animals (and if they are, then it still isn't as great a loss to the economy as the loss of these pedigree animals would presumably be).
Given that the choice seems to be between being called dense or a flip-flop, i'd say their behaviour (ie. claiming that by "no WMDs" they've actually meant "no imminent threat" all the time) is rather rational.
It's a bit weird, though, that while Lem's "Solaris" is just as hard to read as Tarkovsky's is to watch (well, at least when you're sixteen;), "Roadside Picnic" by the Strugatsky brothers, the book "Stalker" is based on, is a very light reading compared to the film..
Hmm, yes, it is indeed a weapon of mass destruction. So you're right and he is wrong.
However, Hans Blix, the man who should be the expert in this field, says it's probably "a stray weapon scavenged from a dump." Given that i'm yet to hear a "told ya!" from those who justified the war by saying that the Iraqi WMD's were "a clear and present danger" (it wasn't really a secret that Iraq had once had chemical and biological weapons), i'm guessing he may be right on this.
If it were a trend, there would be more examples to talk about besides Jose Padilla.
careful! if it comes to things like this, the absence of proof is also a proof. it must be a trend, otherwise they wouldn't be so awfully quiet about it:7
Slashdot Mirror
D'oh.
There was a race between the US and the USSR, but until Buzz Armstrong set his foot on the surface of the Moon, USSR had taken pretty much all the trophies: first man in space, etc (the list of USSR "space firsts" is quite long -- if you're the first then who gives a shit about the fact that your technology isn't really that great?). Sending a man to the Moon was pretty much the last chance to score a PR victory for the US.
An interesting take on these incompleteness theories is Jaakko Hintikka's book "The Principles of Mathematics Revisited." He states, among other things, that Gödel only proved the deductive incompleteness of Arithmetics, but his result is really not that important as it says nothing about the descriptive completeness of systems. His (Hintikka's) point is, that deductive completeness (the possibility to deduce all the possible sentences from given axioms), something that mathematicians had always strived for, isn't really that important; more important is a system's descriptive power.
Under a microscope or in a telescope? Under a microscope, it looks like a stuffed raincloud. But in a telescope (Hubble would do quite nicely, except that it's pointed the wrong way), it looks like... yes, you guessed it, it looks like a pancake!
A rain of whales would be cooler, though.
It's the rest of the world that's in. YOU are outside of the cage.
Nitpick :P
What'd be more interesting, however, would be to compare the ways these guys took to get there. Whether the function of the machine made any difference, etc.
Who cares who was first... what really matters is what we do now and in the future.
More importantly, where have all the trolls gone?
The cure to Nethack addiction.
Or at least that's the theory. I haven't used it, but as far as i know, it's just as meaningful as political discussions on Slashdot.
Yes there is. Click "older stuff"; in the search thingie, click the "Journals" radio button and then "Search," without typing anything in the text box. This brings up all the journal entries, starting from the latest. Not as convenient as a slashbox would be, but at least it's there.
The reason why the left supports Castro and China is, that both China and Cuba are supposedly communist countries. America is capitalist and capitalism, as you may know, is evil (capitalists were the ones who killed indians, you know), so naturally they root for the communist countries. Their support for Cuba is probably mostly about this guilt -- the US having supported the previous dictators'n'all. The thing with China is a bit different. The Chinese was the "good" communists, as they didn't get along with the Soviet Union. Chairman Mao was very popular amongst the intelligentsia in the 1960's -- i don't think they understood what was really going on in China. All that was important for them was, that the cultural revolution sent university professors to work in the rice fields.
I really don't know what has changed since then (the latest Western book on "theories of revolution" that i've read is from the year 1973), but i guess not much. The intelligentsia still hate the West, blaming it for all the bad things that have happened. And in a sense, they're right, as the roots of many of the problems encountered in the world today are in one way or another in the constant expansion of the Western world, but saying that only the West (or only the US) is to blame for all this sounds, IMHO, kinda biblical. Blaming the Israelis is doubly so.
I protest! Douglas Adams is immortal!
(BTW, this is what i'm talking about)
I'm mostly replying to the AC, but if one is to believe John Deely, then semiotics is the mathematics of the future (aside from being the most important thing ever discovered (tm)). So you may still have a future :7
You know what the best part is? That Western Europe was probably saved from invasion only because Ogodai, the Mongol leader, died, and the disarray his departure caused in the empire forced the Mongols to retreat..
Actually, these are pretty much exactly the things that are meant when someone says "international law." But you're right in that these "laws" are so much different from ordinary laws that it's still disputed whether they deserve to be called "law" at all...
There isn't? Then how come there's such a thing as "diplomatic immunity?" Is it just my imagination? Or all those other things i was told about in my introductory law course? Are you telling me that these are all myths, and that in reality, everyone does what they will?
Have you ever heard the terms 'democracy' and 'civil disobedience'? They basically mean that if the government does any of the things you just described, you remove the said government from power.
But protecting every alpaca from being smuggled out of the country isn't even the point. The point of this program seems to be to keep the "best" (best from whose point of view?) alpacas in. They are only going to tag 900 animals, as they assume that the smugglers won't be interested in the other three million animals (and if they are, then it still isn't as great a loss to the economy as the loss of these pedigree animals would presumably be).
WMD found
Given that the choice seems to be between being called dense or a flip-flop, i'd say their behaviour (ie. claiming that by "no WMDs" they've actually meant "no imminent threat" all the time) is rather rational.
It's a bit weird, though, that while Lem's "Solaris" is just as hard to read as Tarkovsky's is to watch (well, at least when you're sixteen ;), "Roadside Picnic" by the Strugatsky brothers, the book "Stalker" is based on, is a very light reading compared to the film..
However, Hans Blix, the man who should be the expert in this field, says it's probably "a stray weapon scavenged from a dump." Given that i'm yet to hear a "told ya!" from those who justified the war by saying that the Iraqi WMD's were "a clear and present danger" (it wasn't really a secret that Iraq had once had chemical and biological weapons), i'm guessing he may be right on this.
careful! if it comes to things like this, the absence of proof is also a proof. it must be a trend, otherwise they wouldn't be so awfully quiet about it :7