It does. This is obviously just an RDBMS with a web front end and hooks for writing (and probably saving) your own "mathematical" SELECT statements. Big deal.
Usenet is actually a good resource again. The Me-too!ing AOLers moved on to web based forums. There are always usenet trolls, but they're easy enough to ignore if you lurk a bit before posting.
Because ID cards can be stolen without drawing much attention. Stealing someone's implanted RFID tag would result in a would-be intruder getting a lot of unwanted attention.
That was never my point. Moreover, it is factually incorrect to state that communism is or was designed to work as a political ideology for states. It is an anarchistic movement. Indeed, there are many 'libertarian communists' who subscribe to the ideal of maximizing interpersonal freedom while maintaining strict communal living. In essense, making sure that everyone has their needs met and can actually enjoy it.
I'm a mathematician, not a biologist. But I've studied all sorts of models of evolutionary development as part of a computational class in the philosophy of life and artificial life. From what I've gathered, your insights are indeed a part of modern evolutionary theory. However, the theory is very fragmented. As I mentioned, there are many competing models for evolutionary development that fit within the known empirical data. They're all nice models, but more information is needed before any one of them can be chosen as the favored model. In particular, there is no known mechanism causing sudden and massive evolutionary shifts of the sort necessary for punctuated equilibrium to occur. They just seem to sort of happen, even in the computational models. (Cue rants about intelligent shifting)
If you're interested in this material, take a look at "An Introduction to Artificial Life" (I think) by Adami. Mark Bedau's work is also very accessible (though I might be biased since he taught the class). Last I checked, the wikipedia entry on artificial life was pretty good, and had a lot of other references.
No it hasn't. It's perfectly workable in small communities. See the 1968 Paris Commune, which was only removed through French military force, and Israeli Kibbutzs. There are plenty of others.
Yes, punctuated equilibrium. For the uninitiated, imagine a differentiable manifold called 'utility'. Evolution drives to maximize utility, but it's easy to get stuck in local maxima. That's when an ecosystem is in equilibrium. It takes drastic environmental change to knock everyone out of that local maximum and maybe look for a new one.
From TFA: The warmth in which the Northern Hemisphere has basked since the middle of the 20th century has been the most widespread and longest period of unusual climate experienced at any time during at least the past 1,200 years, according to a research paper in the journal Science.(Emphasis mine)
They couldn't track it back any further, so they make no claim as to whether it was warmer or colder before 1200 years. Poor reading comprehension and ideological motivations are an algorithm for calamity.
You could make the same argument for a historical record going back millions or even billions of years. Meanwhile, this is the best data currently available.
If you really think about it, it becomes more and more obvious that Perl was intended to be the programming language analogue of English. Not elegant or pretty, but full of useful idioms borrowed from other languages.
Off-topic, I know. But what you said reminded me of it.
What risk? What are you talking about? The only relevant difference between a 501(c)(3) and a regular corporation is that a 501(c)(3)'s revenue isn't taxed, so long as any 'profits' are re-invested in the company. Scientists would have to be scouted for, just like a for-profit company would have to do. Just because there currently aren't any 501(c)(3) pharmaceutical companies doesn't mean there can't be.
That's eaxactly what a system like this is designed to detect; when Amazon.com suddendly get spikes in sales of an obscure title for no appearent reason it is a loud event for these social-pattern analysis programs. It would be much better to use a book on the NY best seller list that everybody is carrying arround, the sales would be obscured deep in the noise that way.
This is an interesting observation, but if this is what the government plans to do, it's going to be completely unworkable. First are practical issues concerning smart algorithms and processor time to do this. This is a huge technical challenge. Second, and most importantly, our culture is not just popular culture. Our culture is made by small loose communities of friends -- things become popular specifically because people popularize them. And our reasons for doing so are usually obscure. Basically, what I'm saying is that Amazon already gets spikes in obscure titles. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we see that they were on their way to becoming popular. Sorting out which spikes are 'legitimate' and not is going to be impossible without total surveillance.
Yes, it does make a difference. An investment banker killing a gay a colleague over a promotion isn't going to keep gay people from becoming bankers. A man killing a gay man to show gay people everywhere that they aren't welcomed in 'his' town is going to scare gay people out.
Who says you need investors? A 501(c)(3) can take out loans or bonds and take in tax-deductible donations. They could also apply for government funding, just like the big pharma companies do. A 501(c)(3) wouldn't even have to sell the drugs at cost, as long as they re-invest their revenue in itself.
It looks to me like you just said the first thing that came to mind after skipping a few comments.
Who modded this interesting? It's wrong in so many ways.
1) Light is EM. 2) Lightning is not EM. 3) The other senses tell us about our relation to the world. Nothing has to 'hit' you to know where you're standing, e.g. while urinating in your bathroom with the lights off.
I'm not the GP, but this gets close to issues in epistemology I've studied extensively. In this context, belief is taken to be simply the propositional attitude of thinking that a claim is true. So you believe that P holds iff you think that P is true.
Faith implies a certain concreteness of belief, even in the face of it being unjustifiable.
So say your boss, whom you trust very very much, since he has in the past been infallible, tells you that the Seahawks won the SuperBowl. You hadn't seen the game, so you believe him. Later that day, you turn on the news and hear that the other team won. Who do you believe? A person with faith in her boss would presumably have faith in what he said. And so she would believe believe that the Seahawks won.
It's tricky -- I might seem like I'm being pejorative, but I'm not.
Science does not strive for "rational explanations." Science is purely descriptive, not explanatory. Scientists leave the realm of science when they try to explain natural phenomena.
Here's a realistic breakdown of the scientific method. I call it realistic because it is what is commonly used by practicing scientists:
Scientist notices an aspect of a natural phenomenon, either through preliminary experimentation, thought experiments, or looking through someone else's work.
Scientist proposes a model to capture features of this new aspect and hopefully predict new features.
Scientist experimentally verifies the new features.
The point is that a model is not an explanation. Moreover, the method shows that new discoveries are "special cases" for which the old model was inadequate. Equating a model with an explanation would be the height of silliness, since no model will ever be complete.
Slashdot Mirror
It does. This is obviously just an RDBMS with a web front end and hooks for writing (and probably saving) your own "mathematical" SELECT statements. Big deal.
Usenet is actually a good resource again. The Me-too!ing AOLers moved on to web based forums. There are always usenet trolls, but they're easy enough to ignore if you lurk a bit before posting.
Oh shit, Dell has a monopoly on Dell computers! Lenovo has a monopoly on IBM ThinkPads! Someone call the FTC!
Because ID cards can be stolen without drawing much attention. Stealing someone's implanted RFID tag would result in a would-be intruder getting a lot of unwanted attention.
I suggest you read your very own link, since it agrees with what I have said. kthnxbye.
That was never my point. Moreover, it is factually incorrect to state that communism is or was designed to work as a political ideology for states. It is an anarchistic movement. Indeed, there are many 'libertarian communists' who subscribe to the ideal of maximizing interpersonal freedom while maintaining strict communal living. In essense, making sure that everyone has their needs met and can actually enjoy it.
You are correct. I was purposefully being simplistic for explanatory reasons.
If you're interested in this material, take a look at "An Introduction to Artificial Life" (I think) by Adami. Mark Bedau's work is also very accessible (though I might be biased since he taught the class). Last I checked, the wikipedia entry on artificial life was pretty good, and had a lot of other references.
I've already given you examples of successful communes. Feel free to ignore reality. Buh bye!
No longer a student. :-)
That was true until Tiger. Tiger runs noticably slower than Panther. I blame Spotlight.
No it hasn't. It's perfectly workable in small communities. See the 1968 Paris Commune, which was only removed through French military force, and Israeli Kibbutzs. There are plenty of others.
On another note, Darwin supports his theory of evolution. He looks like a monkey!
They couldn't track it back any further, so they make no claim as to whether it was warmer or colder before 1200 years. Poor reading comprehension and ideological motivations are an algorithm for calamity.
You could make the same argument for a historical record going back millions or even billions of years. Meanwhile, this is the best data currently available.
That's a good way of putting it. It's roughly equivalent to the justification position I put out, but avoids the possibly insulting example.
Off-topic, I know. But what you said reminded me of it.
What risk? What are you talking about? The only relevant difference between a 501(c)(3) and a regular corporation is that a 501(c)(3)'s revenue isn't taxed, so long as any 'profits' are re-invested in the company. Scientists would have to be scouted for, just like a for-profit company would have to do. Just because there currently aren't any 501(c)(3) pharmaceutical companies doesn't mean there can't be.
This is an interesting observation, but if this is what the government plans to do, it's going to be completely unworkable. First are practical issues concerning smart algorithms and processor time to do this. This is a huge technical challenge. Second, and most importantly, our culture is not just popular culture. Our culture is made by small loose communities of friends -- things become popular specifically because people popularize them. And our reasons for doing so are usually obscure. Basically, what I'm saying is that Amazon already gets spikes in obscure titles. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we see that they were on their way to becoming popular. Sorting out which spikes are 'legitimate' and not is going to be impossible without total surveillance.
Yes, it does make a difference. An investment banker killing a gay a colleague over a promotion isn't going to keep gay people from becoming bankers. A man killing a gay man to show gay people everywhere that they aren't welcomed in 'his' town is going to scare gay people out.
It looks to me like you just said the first thing that came to mind after skipping a few comments.
Who modded this interesting? It's wrong in so many ways.
1) Light is EM.
2) Lightning is not EM.
3) The other senses tell us about our relation to the world. Nothing has to 'hit' you to know where you're standing, e.g. while urinating in your bathroom with the lights off.
I'm a man, you damned dirty lawyer!
Faith implies a certain concreteness of belief, even in the face of it being unjustifiable.
So say your boss, whom you trust very very much, since he has in the past been infallible, tells you that the Seahawks won the SuperBowl. You hadn't seen the game, so you believe him. Later that day, you turn on the news and hear that the other team won. Who do you believe? A person with faith in her boss would presumably have faith in what he said. And so she would believe believe that the Seahawks won.
It's tricky -- I might seem like I'm being pejorative, but I'm not.
Science does not strive for "rational explanations." Science is purely descriptive, not explanatory. Scientists leave the realm of science when they try to explain natural phenomena.
Here's a realistic breakdown of the scientific method. I call it realistic because it is what is commonly used by practicing scientists:
The point is that a model is not an explanation. Moreover, the method shows that new discoveries are "special cases" for which the old model was inadequate. Equating a model with an explanation would be the height of silliness, since no model will ever be complete.