Although IQ tests do have flaws, It's quite clear that some people have far more difficulty grasping concepts than others. Have you ever tried explaining something to someone who just doesn't "get it"?
There's definitely a big range of intelligence across the population, no matter how you try to measure it.
The wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity/) has details of a couple of different experiments that seem to confirm that the speed of gravity is c, but they're not particularly precise yet.
One of the measurements does indeed use a natural event - a pair of binary pulsars that have decaying orbits due to gravitational damping.
The problem with trying to measure it indirectly is that we're reliant on using theories to calculate the results, so it almost begs the question to use general relativity to calculate a result predicted by general relativity.
Well, it does say about commanding their hosts. Physics has nothing to say about whether or not the universe had their hosts commanded during inflation, so this could be a valuable addition to our knowledge.
I don't know how you'd measure the speed of gravity, but isn't it generally thought to be the same as the speed of light (and thus the same as other forces)?
Yes, and even the Gzilt suspected that their religion might be contrived when they met up with other intergalactic species. Having a holy book that imparts top quality information is a lot more difficult to dismiss than a book filled with vague stories.
I understand you might only have experience of the one gender, but women also suck dicks. TFA mentions Candida and thrush which tends to affect women more than men, so cunnilingus is probably a more common route to getting too much Candida thriving in your mouth.
In summary, you'd have to be some kind of idiot to think this is agenda-driven science.
I think it depends on the nature of the evidence. If the person had significant knowledge imparted to them that would be extremely unlikely for them to know any other way, then that would be far more interesting.
Imagine if a prophet included a page of maths leading up to e=m*c*c or the chemical formula of a cancer cure (although I don't see why a god would invent cancer and then want the cure to be known) or maybe even a work of art that is so inspirational that people are struck with awe? However, if a god wanted to be widely known, it'd be easy to write commandments into the side of a mountain or even create a new bird species whose songs were the different commandments.
The problem with a human testifying about contact with a god is that they should have extraordinary evidence. Third hand reports of turning water into wine or walking on water are too easy to be faked when specific knowledge of the future cannot be faked (unless it's retroactively).
If I ever meet a god, I'm gonna take a bunch of photos, get him to post on my facebook and ask him some specific questions. If he doesn't want to impart knowledge (apart from wishy-washy "be good to others"), then I'm going to suspect that he's a hallucination. There's a lot more evidence throughout history that humans easily hallucinate and make up shit.
If I'm prompted for a password when I try to buy software, then I'd expect any attempt to buy further software would require the password again.
If I put in a password and it flashed up "Authorised for 30 minutes" and had an easy way to cancel the 30 minutes, then the fault would be clearly with the parent.
It's unreasonable to have a hidden timeout to allow kids to buy games on someone else's account.
It wasn't the kids' choice to be born - the decision was most definitely made by the parents. Now, having made that decision, you realise that you don't have the means and inclination to devote N hours of your time to keeping them entertained/supervised.
Thanks for thoughtlessly adding to the world's population when we're already starting to hit resource pressures with the people we've got.
Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.
Due to the lack of printing presses, low literacy levels at the time and the difficulty in keeping old books around, I guess that the large numbers you refer to are not in fact large numbers. I'm not saying that he was right or wrong, but his work on optics was remarkable, so maybe it's best not to belittle his works.
As far as I know, the line is drawn when you start storing personal data. They were keeping the name, address, date of birth and telephone number of people who were looking for advice and they weren't keeping it securely. A typical web server won't be storing anything more than IP addresses and browser types so you won't get into trouble for storing personal data without following the relevant laws.
They're not so much mutually exclusive as orthogonal. However, if you try to apply religion to scientific questions (e.g. how does evolution work) then you'll get nowhere and similarly, science isn't much use when evaluating why gods produce so much suffering.
I disagree. I think of religion as being very similar to a culture and as such, it makes more sense to inform children about the culture/religion they are growing up in.
There's nothing wrong with a religious school as long as they don't withhold knowledge, which unfortunately is what is happening in this case. A religious school that teaches evolution in their science lessons and creationism in their religious studies gets my blessing even though I'm a die-hard atheist.
Nope - they just went out with a box full of donuts and they replenished the donuts that were taken (presumably to prevent "it's the last one - must be delicious" skewing the results).
The tests on the twins also weren't the best designed tests, but with such a small sample size, you're not going to get rigorous results. However, It was surprising just how big an effect their diets had on them.
In that documentary, they went out into a street with a big selection of different donuts (plain, frosted, chocolate, custard-filled) and invited people to take one. The plain one was by far the most popular and they figured out that it's because it hits the magic 50/50 ratio. If you add sugar or fat, you make it less delicious which is counter-intuitive. I don't know if there would be any difference if you changed sugar for sweeteners.
Slashdot Mirror
Although IQ tests do have flaws, It's quite clear that some people have far more difficulty grasping concepts than others. Have you ever tried explaining something to someone who just doesn't "get it"?
There's definitely a big range of intelligence across the population, no matter how you try to measure it.
I don't understand. Has anyone got a car analogy for me?
The wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity/) has details of a couple of different experiments that seem to confirm that the speed of gravity is c, but they're not particularly precise yet.
One of the measurements does indeed use a natural event - a pair of binary pulsars that have decaying orbits due to gravitational damping.
The problem with trying to measure it indirectly is that we're reliant on using theories to calculate the results, so it almost begs the question to use general relativity to calculate a result predicted by general relativity.
I always thought that a comma was kind of like a Baroque period,
Well, it does say about commanding their hosts. Physics has nothing to say about whether or not the universe had their hosts commanded during inflation, so this could be a valuable addition to our knowledge.
I could care less about the inflationary period.
I don't know how you'd measure the speed of gravity, but isn't it generally thought to be the same as the speed of light (and thus the same as other forces)?
Mmmm! Tasty fungus
Yes, and even the Gzilt suspected that their religion might be contrived when they met up with other intergalactic species. Having a holy book that imparts top quality information is a lot more difficult to dismiss than a book filled with vague stories.
I understand you might only have experience of the one gender, but women also suck dicks. TFA mentions Candida and thrush which tends to affect women more than men, so cunnilingus is probably a more common route to getting too much Candida thriving in your mouth.
In summary, you'd have to be some kind of idiot to think this is agenda-driven science.
I think it depends on the nature of the evidence. If the person had significant knowledge imparted to them that would be extremely unlikely for them to know any other way, then that would be far more interesting.
Imagine if a prophet included a page of maths leading up to e=m*c*c or the chemical formula of a cancer cure (although I don't see why a god would invent cancer and then want the cure to be known) or maybe even a work of art that is so inspirational that people are struck with awe? However, if a god wanted to be widely known, it'd be easy to write commandments into the side of a mountain or even create a new bird species whose songs were the different commandments.
The problem with a human testifying about contact with a god is that they should have extraordinary evidence. Third hand reports of turning water into wine or walking on water are too easy to be faked when specific knowledge of the future cannot be faked (unless it's retroactively).
If I ever meet a god, I'm gonna take a bunch of photos, get him to post on my facebook and ask him some specific questions. If he doesn't want to impart knowledge (apart from wishy-washy "be good to others"), then I'm going to suspect that he's a hallucination. There's a lot more evidence throughout history that humans easily hallucinate and make up shit.
Will that work if I change my name to Randall Munroe? Why is his name special?
And people wonder why inbreeding is bad?
Or, the password request can provide 2 options - authorise for the next 30 minutes or authorise just this transaction.
If I'm prompted for a password when I try to buy software, then I'd expect any attempt to buy further software would require the password again.
If I put in a password and it flashed up "Authorised for 30 minutes" and had an easy way to cancel the 30 minutes, then the fault would be clearly with the parent.
It's unreasonable to have a hidden timeout to allow kids to buy games on someone else's account.
It wasn't the kids' choice to be born - the decision was most definitely made by the parents. Now, having made that decision, you realise that you don't have the means and inclination to devote N hours of your time to keeping them entertained/supervised.
Thanks for thoughtlessly adding to the world's population when we're already starting to hit resource pressures with the people we've got.
Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.
Huh? I think you might have replied to the wrong post as I don't know what you are talking about.
If you did mean to reply to my post, can you explain what you're banging on about?
Due to the lack of printing presses, low literacy levels at the time and the difficulty in keeping old books around, I guess that the large numbers you refer to are not in fact large numbers. I'm not saying that he was right or wrong, but his work on optics was remarkable, so maybe it's best not to belittle his works.
As far as I know, the line is drawn when you start storing personal data. They were keeping the name, address, date of birth and telephone number of people who were looking for advice and they weren't keeping it securely. A typical web server won't be storing anything more than IP addresses and browser types so you won't get into trouble for storing personal data without following the relevant laws.
They're not so much mutually exclusive as orthogonal. However, if you try to apply religion to scientific questions (e.g. how does evolution work) then you'll get nowhere and similarly, science isn't much use when evaluating why gods produce so much suffering.
I disagree. I think of religion as being very similar to a culture and as such, it makes more sense to inform children about the culture/religion they are growing up in.
There's nothing wrong with a religious school as long as they don't withhold knowledge, which unfortunately is what is happening in this case. A religious school that teaches evolution in their science lessons and creationism in their religious studies gets my blessing even though I'm a die-hard atheist.
He's dead now, so that didn't turn out that well for him.
Nope - they just went out with a box full of donuts and they replenished the donuts that were taken (presumably to prevent "it's the last one - must be delicious" skewing the results).
The tests on the twins also weren't the best designed tests, but with such a small sample size, you're not going to get rigorous results. However, It was surprising just how big an effect their diets had on them.
Nice try, but crab meat has to be distinguished from meat, so I'm not going to allow that one.
In that documentary, they went out into a street with a big selection of different donuts (plain, frosted, chocolate, custard-filled) and invited people to take one. The plain one was by far the most popular and they figured out that it's because it hits the magic 50/50 ratio. If you add sugar or fat, you make it less delicious which is counter-intuitive. I don't know if there would be any difference if you changed sugar for sweeteners.