People who need to drive 150 mph can get a powerfull sportscar - maybe even one that'll only do 2 mpg flat out.
Nobody wants a sports/race car that only gets 2 mpg.
Gasoline is heavy. And energetic. Better fuel efficiency means you can carry less of it, and get more (speed) out of it.
Admittedly, sports cars are relatively wasteful, since they are tuned for maximizing speed. But this necessarily involves maximizing the amount of energy extracted from fuel, which is the SAME goal econo-car makers are trying to achieve. Econo-car makers are only getting there now because of a LOT of engineering by Honda, Toyota, Porsche, Ferrari, etc 10 years ago.
Are you kidding? Alaric was garrisoned outside Rome for OVER A YEAR before the emperor betrayed him and negotiations for a piece of Switzerland (a la the governorship of Judea) broke down.
On the other hand, declining military drill as Goths and Vandals joined the Roman military was a contributing factor to the decline of the Roman empire.
I agree. You rarely see that kind of bullshit on science/mathematics articles. Mostly because editors are passionate about the topic, but ultimately disinterested. Hell, my senior Mathematics thesis was cited by several articles (accurately, though they were eventually removed). I didn't mention that because I'm proud of it (though it is kind of neat), but because I don't particularly care that I'm not cited anymore. Big whoop, the article's tone/focus changed and my work became less relevant than other sources (they were citing some of my definitions in a few articles -- however, those are only used in a relatively specialized field, more specialized than the articles specifically).
There is a clear institutional flaw on "the other side" of Wikipedia, where anybody with an opinion can and does post. It's a shame -- academia is much better in this regard. In academia, a degree gets your foot in the door. There are other ways to do it, but they are pretty rare in practice. But no matter what, every substantive thing you say is subject to debate, in public. Indeed, often in the same forum as the original article. Not behind a "Talk Page" that is "behind" the sanctioned opinion of the day.
No, the article was not alleging conspiracy. If you had read it, instead of just the summary, you would see that.
The mechanisms of Chomksian media theory were "exploited" at several turns. Like I said, Wikipedia protected the journalist and his edits, locking them on several occasions. They protected his real identity. The Reg was pretty fair on this point -- Wikipedia on the whole thought that Byrne's motives were suspect and reacted to his moves to ban the journalist negatively. They finally banned the journalist's accounts when it became apparent to them what was going on. Several similar incidents occurred at the WSJ.
Chomsky wrote about the mechanisms by which the media can become skewed. A bad apple in the media made it extremely obvious that Chomsky was right, since he was exploiting them (or rather, using his connections to protect his position) at every turn. What's so hard to understand about that?
Bollocks. This is just straightforward lying. That has eff all to do with Chomsky and Hermann's analysis of how the media is distorted. On the contrary their theories mostly emphasize unconscious distortion and selection practiced out of the "highest motives" by those selected and self-selected to man the positions of power in our current system.
Like how Jimmy Wales and others protected the accused journalist, because they doubted Byrne's motives?
This case is direct evidence for Chomskian media theory. (As if there wasn't enough already -- Chomsky has compiled literally thousands of incidents)
Why do you think the press would be any different than Wikipedia? Because it is permanent? Nobody cares about yesterday's news anyway. Because you need to be hired to join? Getting hired is easy -- essentially any interested party can join. Because journalists have integrity? I won't accuse all journalists of being disingenuous, but this particular journalist was caught manipulating both wikipedia and the mainstream media.
Certainly, if you let a fox in your hen house, you should expect your dinner to get eaten -- whether the metaphorical hen house is Wikipedia or the mainstream media.
Well, while that is a sound strategy (more-or-less), the "journalists" are getting their "common knowledge" from places like Wikipedia, and using it to support their interested position.
At least, this is part of what happened in this case. It is an interesting story, and I recommend RTFA. (I know, I know, it's slashdot)
Just use a fake identity. Sure, they can track sales to "you". But it is an anonymous "you", not connected to the real world aside from their statistical model. Who cares what statistics think? They're wrong most of the time, statistically speaking. (I work as a statistician, this week)
I can't tell if you're utterly clueless, or if you're speaking on a level so far above me that I can't even detect the fact that it contains intelligence.
You're pretty arrogant for being so utterly wrong.
A statement is either true or false given certain axioms. It's not "relative to a structure" or to anything else outside those axioms. If it is "known" then it has a proof, otherwise it isn't really known.
No, that is flat out wrong. And Godel certainly proved that a statement is not either true or false given a set of axioms. That doesn't even make sense, though even the most sensible interpretation is wrong. You are butchering the language of modern mathematical logic. Modern mathematical logic is based on Tarskian semantics of truth, in which truth is defined relative to structures.
Please read a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_theorem is a good start. it begins:
A first-order formula is called logically valid if it is true in every structure for its language. The completeness theorem shows that if a formula is logically valid then there is a finite deduction (a formal proof) of the formula.... A more general version of Gödel's completeness theorem holds. It says that for any first-order theory T and any sentence S in the language of the theory, there is a formal deduction of S from T if and only if S is satisfied by every model of T.
I presented the latter version -- a theory is the set of all sentences deducible from an axiomatization. Note that a model for a theory T is a structure/interpretation (they are synonyms) for which every sentence of T is true. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/ is pretty readable.
What does this even mean? How can a mathematical truth be 'known" if it cannot be proven?
There is a big difference between truth and provability. Truth is always relative to a structure. But a statement can only be proven (from a set of axioms) if it is true in EVERY structure (that "satisfies" the axioms). This is Godel's completeness theorem.
More importantly, many clinical changes are based on meta-studies... which as basically studies which combine all the available data. If negative studies are not published, it throws off these metastudies... and thus bad care occurs.
How does the positive publication bias "throw off" metastudies? Please, feel free to use statistical terms. I do not see how this is possible off-hand unless the metastudies use seriously flawed methodology.
Presumably, they aggregate "like-typed" (in the sense that they have "similar" independent variables) data from published studies. Unless the type system is fairly strict, you will end up with nonsense. But unless a negative result directly contradicts a "known" positive result (in which case it would probably be published), the kind of data you can get out of a negative result is obviously going to have a different type than from a positive result. I don't see that they can be mixed.
They can demand all they want. Doesn't mean they will get it.
You ignored my question in favor of going on a rant.
Obviously, they have the right to say what they want. I was asking if their demands are supported by law. Perhaps under an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for purpose. Also, the TOS could have terms relating directly to the shutdown of the service.
It's not just that simple. You don't just string the fiber between telephone poles,...
Why not?
Glass is lighter than steel, by volume. Glass can be enclosed in a protective covering good enough to protect the fiber from birds and the like. (Hell, the fiber/cover could be hung or otherwise directly attached to steel cable) "Re-transmitters" or whatever is necessary to keep the signal strong could conceivably be mounted on poles.
I fail to see what the big deal is, though I admittedly don't know much about the subject. Please elucidate.
Slashdot Mirror
People who need to drive 150 mph can get a powerfull sportscar - maybe even one that'll only do 2 mpg flat out.
Nobody wants a sports/race car that only gets 2 mpg.
Gasoline is heavy. And energetic. Better fuel efficiency means you can carry less of it, and get more (speed) out of it.
Admittedly, sports cars are relatively wasteful, since they are tuned for maximizing speed. But this necessarily involves maximizing the amount of energy extracted from fuel, which is the SAME goal econo-car makers are trying to achieve. Econo-car makers are only getting there now because of a LOT of engineering by Honda, Toyota, Porsche, Ferrari, etc 10 years ago.
Yeah, except at tone and stereo imaging and frequency response. You know, the "sound".
I've done that once or twice myself. But then I wrote an xmonad 'plugin' to color code my xterms by server.
No one saw the fall of Rome
Are you kidding? Alaric was garrisoned outside Rome for OVER A YEAR before the emperor betrayed him and negotiations for a piece of Switzerland (a la the governorship of Judea) broke down.
On the other hand, declining military drill as Goths and Vandals joined the Roman military was a contributing factor to the decline of the Roman empire.
Uh, look up the "Homeomorphism problem". It is the central question of one of the unifying mathematical theories -- topology.
I agree. You rarely see that kind of bullshit on science/mathematics articles. Mostly because editors are passionate about the topic, but ultimately disinterested. Hell, my senior Mathematics thesis was cited by several articles (accurately, though they were eventually removed). I didn't mention that because I'm proud of it (though it is kind of neat), but because I don't particularly care that I'm not cited anymore. Big whoop, the article's tone/focus changed and my work became less relevant than other sources (they were citing some of my definitions in a few articles -- however, those are only used in a relatively specialized field, more specialized than the articles specifically).
There is a clear institutional flaw on "the other side" of Wikipedia, where anybody with an opinion can and does post. It's a shame -- academia is much better in this regard. In academia, a degree gets your foot in the door. There are other ways to do it, but they are pretty rare in practice. But no matter what, every substantive thing you say is subject to debate, in public. Indeed, often in the same forum as the original article. Not behind a "Talk Page" that is "behind" the sanctioned opinion of the day.
No, the article was not alleging conspiracy. If you had read it, instead of just the summary, you would see that.
The mechanisms of Chomksian media theory were "exploited" at several turns. Like I said, Wikipedia protected the journalist and his edits, locking them on several occasions. They protected his real identity. The Reg was pretty fair on this point -- Wikipedia on the whole thought that Byrne's motives were suspect and reacted to his moves to ban the journalist negatively. They finally banned the journalist's accounts when it became apparent to them what was going on. Several similar incidents occurred at the WSJ.
Chomsky wrote about the mechanisms by which the media can become skewed. A bad apple in the media made it extremely obvious that Chomsky was right, since he was exploiting them (or rather, using his connections to protect his position) at every turn. What's so hard to understand about that?
Bollocks. This is just straightforward lying. That has eff all to do with Chomsky and Hermann's analysis of how the media is distorted. On the contrary their theories mostly emphasize unconscious distortion and selection practiced out of the "highest motives" by those selected and self-selected to man the positions of power in our current system.
Like how Jimmy Wales and others protected the accused journalist, because they doubted Byrne's motives?
Maybe you should RTFA.
This case is direct evidence for Chomskian media theory. (As if there wasn't enough already -- Chomsky has compiled literally thousands of incidents)
Why do you think the press would be any different than Wikipedia? Because it is permanent? Nobody cares about yesterday's news anyway. Because you need to be hired to join? Getting hired is easy -- essentially any interested party can join. Because journalists have integrity? I won't accuse all journalists of being disingenuous, but this particular journalist was caught manipulating both wikipedia and the mainstream media.
Certainly, if you let a fox in your hen house, you should expect your dinner to get eaten -- whether the metaphorical hen house is Wikipedia or the mainstream media.
Well, while that is a sound strategy (more-or-less), the "journalists" are getting their "common knowledge" from places like Wikipedia, and using it to support their interested position.
At least, this is part of what happened in this case. It is an interesting story, and I recommend RTFA. (I know, I know, it's slashdot)
Candlejack, is that
Just use a fake identity. Sure, they can track sales to "you". But it is an anonymous "you", not connected to the real world aside from their statistical model. Who cares what statistics think? They're wrong most of the time, statistically speaking. (I work as a statistician, this week)
I can't tell if you're utterly clueless, or if you're speaking on a level so far above me that I can't even detect the fact that it contains intelligence.
You're pretty arrogant for being so utterly wrong.
A statement is either true or false given certain axioms. It's not "relative to a structure" or to anything else outside those axioms. If it is "known" then it has a proof, otherwise it isn't really known.
No, that is flat out wrong. And Godel certainly proved that a statement is not either true or false given a set of axioms. That doesn't even make sense, though even the most sensible interpretation is wrong. You are butchering the language of modern mathematical logic. Modern mathematical logic is based on Tarskian semantics of truth, in which truth is defined relative to structures.
Please read a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_theorem is a good start. it begins:
I presented the latter version -- a theory is the set of all sentences deducible from an axiomatization. Note that a model for a theory T is a structure/interpretation (they are synonyms) for which every sentence of T is true.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/ is pretty readable.
What does this even mean? How can a mathematical truth be 'known" if it cannot be proven?
There is a big difference between truth and provability. Truth is always relative to a structure. But a statement can only be proven (from a set of axioms) if it is true in EVERY structure (that "satisfies" the axioms). This is Godel's completeness theorem.
Seriously. If somebody did this today, it would be featured on the daily wtf.
Watch out. The editors have started modding complaints down again.
Yeah, we use 5.6 at work. I haven't really bothered keeping up with any Perls past that.
More importantly, many clinical changes are based on meta-studies... which as basically studies which combine all the available data. If negative studies are not published, it throws off these metastudies... and thus bad care occurs.
How does the positive publication bias "throw off" metastudies? Please, feel free to use statistical terms. I do not see how this is possible off-hand unless the metastudies use seriously flawed methodology.
Presumably, they aggregate "like-typed" (in the sense that they have "similar" independent variables) data from published studies. Unless the type system is fairly strict, you will end up with nonsense. But unless a negative result directly contradicts a "known" positive result (in which case it would probably be published), the kind of data you can get out of a negative result is obviously going to have a different type than from a positive result. I don't see that they can be mixed.
They can demand all they want. Doesn't mean they will get it.
You ignored my question in favor of going on a rant.
Obviously, they have the right to say what they want. I was asking if their demands are supported by law. Perhaps under an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for purpose. Also, the TOS could have terms relating directly to the shutdown of the service.
I don't know Wallyworld's terms of service, but are the customers within their rights to demand refunds?
And how exactly should people treat cars?
I'll see you at the arcade, LOSER.
Saving? I hoped they would kill it. Talk about beating a dead horse.
It's not just that simple. You don't just string the fiber between telephone poles,...
Why not?
Glass is lighter than steel, by volume. Glass can be enclosed in a protective covering good enough to protect the fiber from birds and the like. (Hell, the fiber/cover could be hung or otherwise directly attached to steel cable) "Re-transmitters" or whatever is necessary to keep the signal strong could conceivably be mounted on poles.
I fail to see what the big deal is, though I admittedly don't know much about the subject. Please elucidate.
It also makes a nice case statement structure in languages that don't support it -- Perl, for example. Something like:
$self->is_foo ? $self->do_foo :
$self->is_bar ? $self->do_bar :
warn("No match in blah blah blah");