...of technology (from the USA at that, though I know China has tried somewhat similar stuff) being the solution rather than lip service (like Kyoto).
About 80$ and that's when it is operating within undesirable settings (not getting biofuel incentives as well as high material cost) in addition to being a nascent technology (30 years is nothing) without any economics of scale (yet). The price could drop like a stone within the next fifteen years, no wonder Forbes (as well as the DoE btw (read the article)) got interested.
All you who consider yourself green and liberal and whatnot and haven't yet opened your eyes should do so now: the combination of business and technology will be the solution, not the problem (of course you can still be critical, just drop the naysaying). Some of your leaders have already realized and gone pro-nuclear (just an example) and this is even better.
First of all: this game needs a broadband connection even though some play it over dial-up.
I recommend ArmagetronAdvanced -- "Another version of the simple action game modeled after the lightcycle sequence of the movie Tron"
But note it has a lot more depth to it than appears on first sight, you do not only fight the other players but lag itself (how fitting isn't that for a game based on Tron?). It's not to everyones taste but if you get hooked... well I could only say welcome:)
This is a multiplayer somewhat tactical action/racing game (actually it's not only multiplayer, one can play singleplayer as well and modifying the AI of the bots is easy). It is open source (GPL), mature but in active developement/embellishment (recently the creator: Manuel Moos aka Z-man, joined the ArmagetronAD team after a break), and has a good (and more varied than average I would guess) community. The game is available for both windows, anything linux, freebsd, and osx. The different themes/models&skins are also useable on all the different operating systems afaik.
A while ago we had a great player in our community called Majination who was paralysed from the neck down like you. He played with a mouthstick and was damned impressive (it can be a hard game). He hasn't been around lately but many people drop off for some time to rescue their education/job/relationship, then again some don't *big grin*
I don't know the exact setups he used to play. The play itself consists mostly of turning left or right (timing & grinding is crucial), there are other controls in addition (especially glancing can be useful but sound gives some of the same info) but they aren't neccessarily needed (Majination also used the chat available within the game).
There are plenty of good quality servers in both europe and america (lag can be an issue in the game but over time you learn to "know" the lag, compensate for it and use it to your advantage).
Also note that the gameplay is very varied depending on a lot of different server settings, most noteably speed, grid size, rubber, trail behaviour, and trail lenght. So if you don't like one style of play try another server with another style. Some servers also force mode of viewpoint or other camera settings.
Btw I recommend this game to absolutely everybody: it's a hidden gem of an open source game imho and it will just continue to get better and better in true OS style.
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know that not all scientists believe in man-made global warming. If so you would also note the recent disagreement within ICCP (caused by people with your attitude btw) and the name Bjørn Lomborg would mean something to you.
Hey I bet you don't even know what ICCP is.
You can continue to believe in the scientic authorities of your choice like they were infallible semi-gods just because they say the word "science", or you can read and reason on your own - your choice.
Arrogance, hubris, and stupidity need no conspiracy.
The crux of the whole climate change debate is "is it man-made?".
If it is at least mostly caused by man then we can actually change it if we would even want to (some would argue that we shouldn't so as to preempt a coming iceage). If it isn't we would not be able to do much about it (and some others again would argue that by trying we could cause a lot of harm to the earth natural cycle into and out of iceages).
The only reasonably accurate answer is "we have no clue!".
Arrogance. Those claiming that it is man-made are basing their opinion on models that are so incomplete and lacking that it is ludicrous. The models need a lot of further development before they're anywhere close to reliable. For starters they could actually correct the errors that have been found instead of defending the errors.
Hubris. Meteorology often fails at predicting the weather for the next day as we simply do not know enough about the myriad of different causal chains. Yes we know some but obviously not enough. So take meteorology (which is obviously part of the climate sciences) and multiply it with the knowledge of ocean- and earth-based causes and effects (both of which we know less), then scale all of this from a day or a week up to the next fifty years or more.
Stupidity. And somehow, after all of this is done they (the man-made climate changes crowd) think it is fair, logical, reasonable or rational to believe the end result to be more certain than the next days weather?
So if I'm right why are we even having this conversation? Well, people in general need to realize that:
- outside their personal field of excellence/expertise any scientist usually has no more authority on judging matters than anyone else unless they themselves use and check common methods like mathematical and logical accuracy etc. Simply put most don't know shit and go with the flow without much scepticism.
- within a scientific discipline many scientists will not go through the trouble of actually checking the details of what they support if they think it sounds reasonable and if they know (read: like) whoever said it. This is why peer review often fails at catching errors.
Otherwise the mistakes and erroneous conclusion would not have gotten as far as it did in the first place.
The article in the original story itself is as idiotic as the rest. They're comparing a limited (at least in time) worth of oceanographic data and finding that one of their models (out of many models) manage to match the data. Does that prove anything at all on its own? Absolutely not unless it actually manages to to be accurate in predicting the future! And even more importantly: a good model would manage to fit all the available data we have precisely and absolutely none of the models manage to do that, and those who come close only achieve that by more or less random tinkering with the programming code of the models!
I linken til ordet ett kan du lese: "ett tallord, se I en."
Og som jeg sa: "Begge er korrekte; man kan ha både "ett råd" (antall, slik jeg men vilje skrev) og "et råd" (artikkel)."
Kom igjen, korriger heller at jeg skrev "men" istedenfor "med". Du passer ihvertfall godt inn her på slashdot siden du 1. ikke leser/forstår hva andre skriver 2. ikke leser/forstår linkene:)
He's still interesting though, but interesting != truth.
And Jungs "collective unconscious" does not necessarily imply any mystic powers of prediction or even any kind of direct link between individual unconsciousnesses.
Thank god for your voice of reason in the midst of all the kneejerk bashing going on.
The fact that the people responsible at Los Alamos obviously don't have the appropriate security oversight is an extremely dangerous security breach in itself.
Mod parent up, he/she has got a clue about security.
Hey know what? I'm gonna vote for Frp and strangely I'm neither rasist, crypto-fascistoid, or elitist - I'm opposed to all of those and in addition the "freedoms" (sarcasm) of socialism/communism and the increased power to the state you will be voting for.
Anyway I'm just replying to tell you that when anyone starts making small boxes with obnoxious labels to cram other people into just so they can survive whatever limited black and white world they live in they tend to box themselves in instead... and feel free to discover that people are more than whatever political opinions they hold.
...it ended when the companies turned against their consumers as I'm sure we all know.
Lots of excellent posts already but I just want to get this off my chest.
The only thing that is going on is low-intensity mopping up operations (i.e. the time it takes the kids to start using the new tricks to evade the "law").
Welcome to the first real cultural revolution imo.
Slightly OffT:
1. I am a Norwegian
2. Gisle is a super cool guy, really, I've met him in person a few times. On the funny side he's like a hybrid of Linus and Richard imnsho hehe j/k (just image that, please hehe)
Totally OnT:
The law is a total sham. In a democracy any law derives its legitamacy from being supported by the majority of the people. One single filesharing protocol (torrents) is accounting for something close to a third of the total net traffic globally (and I'm willing to bet this number is closer to 50% in Norway because of the proliferation/density of DSL connections) and adding countless other protocols it's reasonable to think that at least 70% of all norwegians do some sort of filesharing of illegal files... Gisle is right. And as far as the law is concerned the norwegian population has rejected it in practice a long time ago. Actions speak louder than words.
Actually Gisle's statement about a nation of lawbreakers is already fulfilled. The present norwegian "åndsverklov" (copyright law) states that it is illegal to upload files you do not own the right for, something which would inclue using bittorrents as you're both downloading and uploading (unless leeching). Does it matter? No! The law is not being enforced and will not be enforced - ever!
Thank you for a great article (and the links) and don't ever worry about slashdot comments, they're often not worth the bytes used. Such a great heads-up as yours seldom even get through the "editorial" process here.
I might be completely wrong but I think this method of cargo transport has a very important sideeffect (or rather the lack of a disadvantageous one) that it seems Mr.Pearson and you yourself might not be aware of or have remembered, so I have sent you both an email. I'm sure you (and others) can figure it out for yourself by looking at this link: http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/ rtr/lv06-1.html (synopsis of an old NASA report and Nature article from the 70ies)
If that wasn't enough of a hint think about He-3 and how to get more (as long as the sun lasts) " )
AC raises an important point in: "The US is number 8 on the list ahead of most of Eupope aside from Scandinavia. What point are you trying to make?"
Some more info from a norwegian (me) in support of AC's scepticism against such lists:
- Norway is high on the list largely because our enormous oil income have made us able to spend a lot on a "welfare state", as it is it is not sustainable
- Denmark is high because they pay about 50% income tax (and that's not all forms of taxation)
- all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have small populations, size does matter within system complexity
- all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have generally high direct and indirect taxation, mostly on common individuals
- all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have fairly serious problems sustaining their notion of a "welfare state" (and many in each country would say that the notion has in practice already died)
I'm sure there are lot's of other things that could be listed as well. So the question becomes to what degree the UN has managed to compensate for such differences in each country throughout the world. It is obvious to me at least (as a norwegian) that they haven't taken all of the aforementioned into account and even if they did they suffer from all the problems of measuring intangibles as well which makes any such list more or less worthless for anything but political manipulation.
And it's interesting to look at who is most entrenched, is it the top elected officials in France or the US? No, it's citizens in each (and every) country. The top officials in the countries are generally much more soft spoken as they know they have to work together even when they disagree on an issue here and there. A bona fide Good ThingTM imo.
Against my better judgement I'm going to give a small reply " )
You say: "You CAN use logic to prove something true"
But I'm guessing what you are really intending to say by that is that one can use logic to prove something to be logically valid (there's that small but oh so important difference again). You are a mathematician so I can easily understand how, for you, those two things seem to be absolutely equal as they would be so within the particular logic of mathematics. However, when that difference is put into practice (outside pure mathematics) the resulting differences become huge (not least of all in the resulting beliefs about what the results actually say), that's why it is important. If you see that need for precision we are in agreement (and yes this is actually more than just semantics as all the sources I've provided will show you).
Interestingly enough we have now also glanced against the topic of why some philosophers of science (and other scientists) do not wish to recognize mathematics as a science in itself but rather as a form of logical structure. That debate is when you get philosophical flamewars hehe.
Otherwise I'm tempted to charge you for this conversation hehe "D (not too much, only $20 hourly) j/k
Yup you're right, just like slashdot is supposed to be news for nerds.
Alt+F4 yes, I guess I should actually take some pride from not remembering that or del *.* correctly
About 14 other people posted stuff that was just about as moronic as my post (yes I admit it) in the time it took for me to rtfa, I overestimated how many would be preoccupied flaming each other in the politics section "D (you know FP is a lame joke as well right?)
Talk about trying to kill a simple joke, for all the braindead: it's the intention of the commands that is funny, not typing the command (well that too if it would work but only del *.* in real dos works and that was pretty much the original joke I guess).
Noone has said "gee, we just didn't find any counter-examples, so this must be true." on the contrary we're saying that science cannot say that something is absolutely true no matter what. You state that we say both things yourself in your own post, so maybe you should realize the inherent contradiction in that. Or more likely you completely fail to grasp the huge difference between those two statements. This is exactly why I'm saying you do not understand what the original poster and I point to. I'm sorry but I've tried my best to show you the scientific reasons as they are accepted, the links to the wikipedia are good stuff (if you don't trust wikipedia you can pick up any introductionary book on the subject of philosophy of science, it will say the same) and I obviously fail to make you grasp a fundamental point which is one of many forming the basis of all valid science. I see no point repeating standard theory of science to you again and again. I have backed up my claims independently and you have not.
An additional source is "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Fourth Edition" by Karel Lambert (University of California, Irvine) and Gordon G. Brittan Jr. (Montana State University), Ridgeview Publishing Company, Box 686, Atascadero, California 93423, ISBN 0-924922-10-9 and ISBN 0-924922-60-5, Chapter Three, Subchapter 2. Confirmation versus Corroboration page 53 and onwards (I'm sure there are newer editions of this book but you should still easily find the subject of Confirmation versus Corroboration in any newer editions or other similar books). As with all of science this is also under constant reevaluation, especially some of the additional details (another poster have commented on such an issue), but the main basis is solidly accepted and is the same as the point by the original poster and me.
In some of the rest of your statements you are saying things that are correct as a result but base it upon a faulty impression of the logic and methology that makes it (science) valid, maybe you should show this discussion (as it is, not as portrayed by you in a sentence or two) to a professor of philosophy of science geographically close to you (philosophy of science is a field of science on its own in case you don't know it). He or she might have a better chance of making you understand.
You probably don't realize it but this problem of comprehension that you examplify is one of the major problems (in addition to, and as a part of, deliberately overlooking errors) within scientific endavours today, resulting in a lot of shabby science and diminishing the overall quality of science. This is why I encourage you to contact such a person, you and your work will benefit greatly from it.
As for this conversation I see no point in responding further to any future misinterpretations, misunderstandings, or faulty accusations by you.
You say you understand but your reply doesn't give that impression. The whole point is that science do not require supporting evidence in the way it seems you think it does (absolutely proving a positive), it requires that a hypothesis is testable and falsible.
You're embellishing your hypothesis in a way to make it non-testable and thereby non-falsible and this is the reason it is not scientific (it also makes it a good example of an ad hoc hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Ad_hoc_hypothe sis).
You say science "... must have supporting evidence..." but the point is that in science the only scientific supporting evidence there can be is that a proposed hypothesis isn't falsified during iterations of testing.
Although the distinction probably seems moot to you it is an important one. If you still disagree then don't bother " )
Slashdot Mirror
Now this actually is a funny joke! Wish I had modpoints to give you :)
...of technology (from the USA at that, though I know China has tried somewhat similar stuff) being the solution rather than lip service (like Kyoto).
:)
About 80$ and that's when it is operating within undesirable settings (not getting biofuel incentives as well as high material cost) in addition to being a nascent technology (30 years is nothing) without any economics of scale (yet). The price could drop like a stone within the next fifteen years, no wonder Forbes (as well as the DoE btw (read the article)) got interested.
All you who consider yourself green and liberal and whatnot and haven't yet opened your eyes should do so now: the combination of business and technology will be the solution, not the problem (of course you can still be critical, just drop the naysaying). Some of your leaders have already realized and gone pro-nuclear (just an example) and this is even better.
Flame me all you want, it's still true
First of all: this game needs a broadband connection even though some play it over dial-up.
:)
I recommend ArmagetronAdvanced -- "Another version of the simple action game modeled after the lightcycle sequence of the movie Tron"
But note it has a lot more depth to it than appears on first sight, you do not only fight the other players but lag itself (how fitting isn't that for a game based on Tron?). It's not to everyones taste but if you get hooked... well I could only say welcome
This is a multiplayer somewhat tactical action/racing game (actually it's not only multiplayer, one can play singleplayer as well and modifying the AI of the bots is easy). It is open source (GPL), mature but in active developement/embellishment (recently the creator: Manuel Moos aka Z-man, joined the ArmagetronAD team after a break), and has a good (and more varied than average I would guess) community. The game is available for both windows, anything linux, freebsd, and osx. The different themes/models&skins are also useable on all the different operating systems afaik.
A while ago we had a great player in our community called Majination who was paralysed from the neck down like you. He played with a mouthstick and was damned impressive (it can be a hard game). He hasn't been around lately but many people drop off for some time to rescue their education/job/relationship, then again some don't *big grin*
I don't know the exact setups he used to play. The play itself consists mostly of turning left or right (timing & grinding is crucial), there are other controls in addition (especially glancing can be useful but sound gives some of the same info) but they aren't neccessarily needed (Majination also used the chat available within the game).
Links:
Original Armagetron (defunct but with historical info & links):
http://armagetron.sourceforge.net/
Sourceforge ArmagetronAD project page:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/armagetronad/
Main page and forum (both social and development):
http://guru3.sytes.net/viewtopic.php?t=1360
There are plenty of good quality servers in both europe and america (lag can be an issue in the game but over time you learn to "know" the lag, compensate for it and use it to your advantage).
Also note that the gameplay is very varied depending on a lot of different server settings, most noteably speed, grid size, rubber, trail behaviour, and trail lenght. So if you don't like one style of play try another server with another style. Some servers also force mode of viewpoint or other camera settings.
Btw I recommend this game to absolutely everybody: it's a hidden gem of an open source game imho and it will just continue to get better and better in true OS style.
Wow you're really good at failed sarcasm :)
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know that not all scientists believe in man-made global warming. If so you would also note the recent disagreement within ICCP (caused by people with your attitude btw) and the name Bjørn Lomborg would mean something to you.
Hey I bet you don't even know what ICCP is.
You can continue to believe in the scientic authorities of your choice like they were infallible semi-gods just because they say the word "science", or you can read and reason on your own - your choice.
Arrogance, hubris, and stupidity need no conspiracy.
The crux of the whole climate change debate is "is it man-made?".
If it is at least mostly caused by man then we can actually change it if we would even want to (some would argue that we shouldn't so as to preempt a coming iceage). If it isn't we would not be able to do much about it (and some others again would argue that by trying we could cause a lot of harm to the earth natural cycle into and out of iceages).
The only reasonably accurate answer is "we have no clue!".
Arrogance. Those claiming that it is man-made are basing their opinion on models that are so incomplete and lacking that it is ludicrous. The models need a lot of further development before they're anywhere close to reliable. For starters they could actually correct the errors that have been found instead of defending the errors.
Hubris. Meteorology often fails at predicting the weather for the next day as we simply do not know enough about the myriad of different causal chains. Yes we know some but obviously not enough. So take meteorology (which is obviously part of the climate sciences) and multiply it with the knowledge of ocean- and earth-based causes and effects (both of which we know less), then scale all of this from a day or a week up to the next fifty years or more.
Stupidity. And somehow, after all of this is done they (the man-made climate changes crowd) think it is fair, logical, reasonable or rational to believe the end result to be more certain than the next days weather?
So if I'm right why are we even having this conversation? Well, people in general need to realize that:
- outside their personal field of excellence/expertise any scientist usually has no more authority on judging matters than anyone else unless they themselves use and check common methods like mathematical and logical accuracy etc. Simply put most don't know shit and go with the flow without much scepticism.
- within a scientific discipline many scientists will not go through the trouble of actually checking the details of what they support if they think it sounds reasonable and if they know (read: like) whoever said it. This is why peer review often fails at catching errors.
Otherwise the mistakes and erroneous conclusion would not have gotten as far as it did in the first place.
The article in the original story itself is as idiotic as the rest. They're comparing a limited (at least in time) worth of oceanographic data and finding that one of their models (out of many models) manage to match the data. Does that prove anything at all on its own? Absolutely not unless it actually manages to to be accurate in predicting the future! And even more importantly: a good model would manage to fit all the available data we have precisely and absolutely none of the models manage to do that, and those who come close only achieve that by more or less random tinkering with the programming code of the models!
Poor science + stupid media hype = poor decisions
1. Travel back in time
:)
2. Sign up at Slashdot
3. ???
4. Profit!
or wait fifty years so you can taunt slashdot member number 684522879551
I linken til ordet ett kan du lese: ."
:)
"ett tallord, se I en
Og som jeg sa:
"Begge er korrekte; man kan ha både "ett råd" (antall, slik jeg men vilje skrev) og "et råd" (artikkel)."
Kom igjen, korriger heller at jeg skrev "men" istedenfor "med". Du passer ihvertfall godt inn her på slashdot siden du 1. ikke leser/forstår hva andre skriver 2. ikke leser/forstår linkene
Absolutely: he was a psychologist! Hehe
He's still interesting though, but interesting != truth.
And Jungs "collective unconscious" does not necessarily imply any mystic powers of prediction or even any kind of direct link between individual unconsciousnesses.
Den er grei, vi slenger med leppa alle sammen iblant :)
Excellent point
And because it validates OO.o it also increases the chances OO.o will actually be chosen.
Thank god for your voice of reason in the midst of all the kneejerk bashing going on.
The fact that the people responsible at Los Alamos obviously don't have the appropriate security oversight is an extremely dangerous security breach in itself.
Mod parent up, he/she has got a clue about security.
Hehe
g i?OPP=ett&bokmaal=S%F8k+i+Bokm%E5lsordboka&ordbok= bokmaal&alfabet=n&renset=j g i?OPP=et&bokmaal=S%F8k+i+Bokm%E5lsordboka&ordbok=b okmaal&alfabet=n&renset=j
http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/ordboksoek/ordbok.c
http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/ordboksoek/ordbok.c
Begge er korrekte; man kan ha både "ett råd" (antall, slik jeg men vilje skrev) og "et råd" (artikkel).
Hey know what? I'm gonna vote for Frp and strangely I'm neither rasist, crypto-fascistoid, or elitist - I'm opposed to all of those and in addition the "freedoms" (sarcasm) of socialism/communism and the increased power to the state you will be voting for.
:)
Anyway I'm just replying to tell you that when anyone starts making small boxes with obnoxious labels to cram other people into just so they can survive whatever limited black and white world they live in they tend to box themselves in instead... and feel free to discover that people are more than whatever political opinions they hold.
Det er ett godt tips, håper du tar det
...it ended when the companies turned against their consumers as I'm sure we all know.
Lots of excellent posts already but I just want to get this off my chest.
The only thing that is going on is low-intensity mopping up operations (i.e. the time it takes the kids to start using the new tricks to evade the "law").
Welcome to the first real cultural revolution imo.
Slightly OffT:
1. I am a Norwegian
2. Gisle is a super cool guy, really, I've met him in person a few times. On the funny side he's like a hybrid of Linus and Richard imnsho hehe j/k (just image that, please hehe)
Totally OnT:
The law is a total sham. In a democracy any law derives its legitamacy from being supported by the majority of the people. One single filesharing protocol (torrents) is accounting for something close to a third of the total net traffic globally (and I'm willing to bet this number is closer to 50% in Norway because of the proliferation/density of DSL connections) and adding countless other protocols it's reasonable to think that at least 70% of all norwegians do some sort of filesharing of illegal files... Gisle is right. And as far as the law is concerned the norwegian population has rejected it in practice a long time ago. Actions speak louder than words.
Actually Gisle's statement about a nation of lawbreakers is already fulfilled. The present norwegian "åndsverklov" (copyright law) states that it is illegal to upload files you do not own the right for, something which would inclue using bittorrents as you're both downloading and uploading (unless leeching). Does it matter? No! The law is not being enforced and will not be enforced - ever!
"People with opinions just go around bothering one another."
;)
That's a beautiful opinon
(made it into a koan if it wasn't already)
Thank you for a great article (and the links) and don't ever worry about slashdot comments, they're often not worth the bytes used. Such a great heads-up as yours seldom even get through the "editorial" process here.
/ rtr/lv06-1.html (synopsis of an old NASA report and Nature article from the 70ies)
I might be completely wrong but I think this method of cargo transport has a very important sideeffect (or rather the lack of a disadvantageous one) that it seems Mr.Pearson and you yourself might not be aware of or have remembered, so I have sent you both an email. I'm sure you (and others) can figure it out for yourself by looking at this link:
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree
If that wasn't enough of a hint think about He-3 and how to get more (as long as the sun lasts) " )
AC raises an important point in:
"The US is number 8 on the list ahead of most of Eupope aside from Scandinavia. What point are you trying to make?"
Some more info from a norwegian (me) in support of AC's scepticism against such lists:
- Norway is high on the list largely because our enormous oil income have made us able to spend a lot on a "welfare state", as it is it is not sustainable
- Denmark is high because they pay about 50% income tax (and that's not all forms of taxation)
- all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have small populations, size does matter within system complexity
- all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have generally high direct and indirect taxation, mostly on common individuals
- all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have fairly serious problems sustaining their notion of a "welfare state" (and many in each country would say that the notion has in practice already died)
I'm sure there are lot's of other things that could be listed as well. So the question becomes to what degree the UN has managed to compensate for such differences in each country throughout the world. It is obvious to me at least (as a norwegian) that they haven't taken all of the aforementioned into account and even if they did they suffer from all the problems of measuring intangibles as well which makes any such list more or less worthless for anything but political manipulation.
Couldn't agree more!
And it's interesting to look at who is most entrenched, is it the top elected officials in France or the US? No, it's citizens in each (and every) country. The top officials in the countries are generally much more soft spoken as they know they have to work together even when they disagree on an issue here and there. A bona fide Good ThingTM imo.
Against my better judgement I'm going to give a small reply " )
You say:
"You CAN use logic to prove something true"
But I'm guessing what you are really intending to say by that is that one can use logic to prove something to be logically valid (there's that small but oh so important difference again). You are a mathematician so I can easily understand how, for you, those two things seem to be absolutely equal as they would be so within the particular logic of mathematics. However, when that difference is put into practice (outside pure mathematics) the resulting differences become huge (not least of all in the resulting beliefs about what the results actually say), that's why it is important. If you see that need for precision we are in agreement (and yes this is actually more than just semantics as all the sources I've provided will show you).
Interestingly enough we have now also glanced against the topic of why some philosophers of science (and other scientists) do not wish to recognize mathematics as a science in itself but rather as a form of logical structure. That debate is when you get philosophical flamewars hehe.
Otherwise I'm tempted to charge you for this conversation hehe "D (not too much, only $20 hourly) j/k
Yup you're right, just like slashdot is supposed to be news for nerds.
Alt+F4 yes, I guess I should actually take some pride from not remembering that or del *.* correctly
About 14 other people posted stuff that was just about as moronic as my post (yes I admit it) in the time it took for me to rtfa, I overestimated how many would be preoccupied flaming each other in the politics section "D (you know FP is a lame joke as well right?)
Talk about trying to kill a simple joke, for all the braindead: it's the intention of the commands that is funny, not typing the command (well that too if it would work but only del *.* in real dos works and that was pretty much the original joke I guess).
To remove this comment press F4 on windows...
And FP btw
Hehe I'm a smoker and it doesn't make me (or anyone else imo) look cool or manly at all but I sure think they taste like heaven "D
*puff* Nasty *puff* habit *puff* though...*puff*
Noone has said "gee, we just didn't find any counter-examples, so this must be true." on the contrary we're saying that science cannot say that something is absolutely true no matter what. You state that we say both things yourself in your own post, so maybe you should realize the inherent contradiction in that. Or more likely you completely fail to grasp the huge difference between those two statements. This is exactly why I'm saying you do not understand what the original poster and I point to. I'm sorry but I've tried my best to show you the scientific reasons as they are accepted, the links to the wikipedia are good stuff (if you don't trust wikipedia you can pick up any introductionary book on the subject of philosophy of science, it will say the same) and I obviously fail to make you grasp a fundamental point which is one of many forming the basis of all valid science. I see no point repeating standard theory of science to you again and again. I have backed up my claims independently and you have not.
An additional source is "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Fourth Edition" by Karel Lambert (University of California, Irvine) and Gordon G. Brittan Jr. (Montana State University), Ridgeview Publishing Company, Box 686, Atascadero, California 93423, ISBN 0-924922-10-9 and ISBN 0-924922-60-5, Chapter Three, Subchapter 2. Confirmation versus Corroboration page 53 and onwards (I'm sure there are newer editions of this book but you should still easily find the subject of Confirmation versus Corroboration in any newer editions or other similar books). As with all of science this is also under constant reevaluation, especially some of the additional details (another poster have commented on such an issue), but the main basis is solidly accepted and is the same as the point by the original poster and me.
In some of the rest of your statements you are saying things that are correct as a result but base it upon a faulty impression of the logic and methology that makes it (science) valid, maybe you should show this discussion (as it is, not as portrayed by you in a sentence or two) to a professor of philosophy of science geographically close to you (philosophy of science is a field of science on its own in case you don't know it). He or she might have a better chance of making you understand.
You probably don't realize it but this problem of comprehension that you examplify is one of the major problems (in addition to, and as a part of, deliberately overlooking errors) within scientific endavours today, resulting in a lot of shabby science and diminishing the overall quality of science. This is why I encourage you to contact such a person, you and your work will benefit greatly from it.
As for this conversation I see no point in responding further to any future misinterpretations, misunderstandings, or faulty accusations by you.
Have a nice day.
You say you understand but your reply doesn't give that impression. The whole point is that science do not require supporting evidence in the way it seems you think it does (absolutely proving a positive), it requires that a hypothesis is testable and falsible.
e sis).
..." but the point is that in science the only scientific supporting evidence there can be is that a proposed hypothesis isn't falsified during iterations of testing.
You're embellishing your hypothesis in a way to make it non-testable and thereby non-falsible and this is the reason it is not scientific (it also makes it a good example of an ad hoc hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Ad_hoc_hypoth
You say science "... must have supporting evidence
Although the distinction probably seems moot to you it is an important one. If you still disagree then don't bother " )
I'll be flamed for this but here goes:
"2 Month healing period?
I'm still not over the 2000 debacle."
Neither it seems are roughly 25% (49% of 50%) of US citizens... "P