Most scientists experience first hand that science was built by all the previous scientists and that their purpose in life, as a scientist, is to continue building the culture of humanity.
All scientific papers acknowledge some of the previous papers upon wich they build.
Humanity's culture has given you so much, why not give something back ? And you may even live long enough to see what you gave being improved by others, which is one of the greatest satisfaction.
You can get much more than what you give. This is like a relationship with someone who has a very big potential, namely humanity.
If you deny that "some theories are more supported by facts than other theories", you are a denier.
If you deny that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories", you are a denier.
If you deny climate scientists the right to say that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories", you are a denier.
Do you think that "some theories are more supported by facts than other theories" ?
If yes then you have to accept the right of climate scientists to say that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories".
The IPCC reports acknowledge that other theories could be right in the end, that is why they use the word "likely" for their predictions instead of saying "we are certain that...".
So calling the IPCC reports "religious" is clearly a mistake. No religion uses the word "likely" for its beliefs.
In all scientific fields, some theories are more supported by facts than others, thus they are more likely than others.
This is also the case for astronomy. Here is an example where those who choose to ignore mountains of facts in order to deny the most supported theories are called deniers by astronomers:
The belief that "if you don't have replicates of some subject to use as a control group, you can't know if a theory will make good predictions about this subject" is false. We only have one universe , with no control group, but scientists have been able to accurately predict things about our universe.
Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematical formalization of how to make a good prediction in a unique universe. It is a mathematical Occam's razor: shorter theories give better predictions, provided that they perfectly describe previous observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inductive_inference&oldid=471899642
>> Yes, this isn't immediately obvious so we need to raise a monkey and a baby human together and see which grows up to be smarter! Though it may not be exactly your point, you seem to acknowledge that the way you raise someone is important for his/her intelligence too. Thus intelligence is partly hereditary.
Do wee need to leave Einstein's baby alone in the jungle to see how long he can survive without any proper education ?
The real question could be: "can Humans become stupid enough so that education won't improve them any more ?". Since this article says that Humans have not evolved much, this may not be an urgent issue.
People are stupid and lazy. I know I am. And we use the same words to mean different things, and different words to mean the same thing. The Semantic Web requires people to be smart and hardworking, and to use standardized vocabularies in standardized ways. Decades of failed or at best partially successful data exchange protocols strongly suggest that these requirements will not be fulfilled.
A quite standardized vocabulary actually exist in Wikipedia (markup language, templates, categories). Here is a list of links that try to combine wikipedia and the semantic web:
The user, aka the client, doesn't need any additional software on his computer. He only uses a standard SSL webbrowser. Only the server needs to install the psiphon software.
As for TCPA/TCG/TPM being such a securing proposal, the answer is no. You can't open the TPM chip in order to know if there are bugs or backdoors in it (security by obscurity). Also, you can't update the wired cryptographic tools in the TPM to avoid new exploits or new cryptanalysis discoveries. All softwares that are allowed to use the TPM, including the OS, won't become magically without bugs. A bad bug in those softwares (that are trusted by the TPM) can be used by an unauthorized person to manipulate the TPM and access its services like decryption of confidential data.
how will a BSD resurgence magically save us from memory leaks and bad UIs, which are userland issues? Oh noes! Microsoft has plans for using BSD code, once more ?
realclimate.org: science from climate scientists
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1
The trouble is: how do we make up our minds about the issue if we reject scientific consensus as proof? The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on. You will find a lot of homeworks here: http://www.realclimate.org/ "Climate science from climate scientists" Click on the "archive" link at the top.
Please also note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives references to the studies that its reports are based on. http://www.ipcc.ch/
Ok, you have a point. My answer to the grandparent was a bit too long (his mistake was that he thought that "fusion reaction" was the opposite of "nuclear reaction"). But I wonder what are the examples of fission reactions that can be exactly reverted by a fusion reaction, and vice versa. In these cases, one reaction would be the exact opposite of the other.
Last I heard nuclear reactions are the opposite of fusion reactions. Are they going nuclear or going fusion? No. Fission and fusion reactions are two different kinds of nuclear reactions. Though you can call them "opposite nuclear reactions" , this would be misleading since both reactions can be a source of energy.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. The above word "indirectly" means that anything GPLed that is distributed by Novell must be royalty-free for everyone, since GPL allows "indirect" copying by everyone (a copy of a copy of a copy...).
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. This means that , should MS enforce its patents on other open source companies, not even Novell can distribute GPL programs covered by the same patents.
0.7 does not have these benefits yet; you must connect specifically to a set group of people (mostly Freenet developers) and anyone you connect to in 0.7 is able to tell what you insert/retrieve.
I thought 0.7 was a friend-to-friend network, meaning you only connect to friends that you know and trust, and they forward files and search requests to their own friends, anonymously. This means only your trusted friends can retrieve files from your computer. This sounds quite safer than 0.5 where anyone can retrieve files from you and then sue you if you sent them forbidden files.
Slashdot Mirror
i've been using an exercise bike while working on my computer, for at least 10 years
Just remove the handlebar in order to free your hands.
Because you will probably be sitting higher on your bike, you may have to add length to your table legs (you can use anything including phonebooks).
Most scientists experience first hand that science was built by all the previous scientists and that their purpose in life, as a scientist, is to continue building the culture of humanity.
All scientific papers acknowledge some of the previous papers upon wich they build.
Humanity's culture has given you so much, why not give something back ? And you may even live long enough to see what you gave being improved by others, which is one of the greatest satisfaction.
You can get much more than what you give. This is like a relationship with someone who has a very big potential, namely humanity.
If you deny that "some theories are more supported by facts than other theories", you are a denier.
If you deny that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories", you are a denier.
If you deny climate scientists the right to say that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories", you are a denier.
A denier of science.
Do you think that "some theories are more supported by facts than other theories" ?
If yes then you have to accept the right of climate scientists to say that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories".
The IPCC reports acknowledge that other theories could be right in the end, that is why they use the word "likely" for their predictions instead of saying "we are certain that...".
So calling the IPCC reports "religious" is clearly a mistake. No religion uses the word "likely" for its beliefs.
Are calling a religion the previous sentence "some theories are more supported by facts than others" ?
This is strange because all religions think that their beliefs don't need to be supported by facts.
In all scientific fields, some theories are more supported by facts than others, thus they are more likely than others.
This is also the case for astronomy.
Here is an example where those who choose to ignore mountains of facts in order to deny the most supported theories are called deniers by astronomers:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/09/im-skeptical-of-denialism/
The belief that "if you don't have replicates of some subject to use as a control group, you can't know if a theory will make good predictions about this subject" is false.
We only have one universe , with no control group, but scientists have been able to accurately predict things about our universe.
Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematical formalization of how to make a good prediction in a unique universe. It is a mathematical Occam's razor: shorter theories give better predictions, provided that they perfectly describe previous observations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inductive_inference&oldid=471899642
USB? I thought we were talking about TTY here.
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and their Doomsday Clock, it is 5 Minutes to Midnight:
http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/
They also mention the main non-nuclear threats like global warming and the other WMDs.
I'm waiting for the anti-(anti-missile missile) missile
Decoys are the best devices against an anti-missile missile. And the cheapest too.
>> Yes, this isn't immediately obvious so we need to raise a monkey and a baby human together and see which grows up to be smarter!
Though it may not be exactly your point, you seem to acknowledge that the way you raise someone is important for his/her intelligence too. Thus intelligence is partly hereditary.
Do wee need to leave Einstein's baby alone in the jungle to see how long he can survive without any proper education ?
The real question could be: "can Humans become stupid enough so that education won't improve them any more ?".
Since this article says that Humans have not evolved much, this may not be an urgent issue.
This one really looks like it should be protected by copyright instead:= i4UVAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&zoom=4&dq=google&ie=ISO-8859-1
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD506475&id
Another proof that big corporations use their cash to patent everything they can.
IE7 is not clean: Secunia shows there are 3 unpatched holes:_ 2006
http://secunia.com/product/12366/?task=advisories
People are stupid and lazy. I know I am. And we use the same words to mean different things, and different words to mean the same thing. The Semantic Web requires people to be smart and hardworking, and to use standardized vocabularies in standardized ways. Decades of failed or at best partially successful data exchange protocols strongly suggest that these requirements will not be fulfilled.
_ State_Of_The_Arti c_MediaWikit ic_Wikipedia
A quite standardized vocabulary actually exist in Wikipedia (markup language, templates, categories).
Here is a list of links that try to combine wikipedia and the semantic web:
http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php/Semantic_Wiki
http://wiki.ontoworld.org/wiki/Sites_using_Semant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Seman
http://www2006.org/programme/item.php?id=4039
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki
Gee, what with your 1337 circumvention software
The user, aka the client, doesn't need any additional software on his computer. He only uses a standard SSL webbrowser.
Only the server needs to install the psiphon software.
http://psiphon.civisec.org.nyud.net:8080/
I would like to know whether RMS has a proposal for securing the internet, or if he considers it an important problem.
r _security&oldid=89887507#Techniques_for_Creating_S ecure_Systems
I think the answer is probably yes and it's probably an OS like GNU/Hurd (made of independant API servers) built on top of a mathematically proven microkernel like Coyotos.
http://coyotos.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compute
As for TCPA/TCG/TPM being such a securing proposal, the answer is no.
You can't open the TPM chip in order to know if there are bugs or backdoors in it (security by obscurity).
Also, you can't update the wired cryptographic tools in the TPM to avoid new exploits or new cryptanalysis discoveries.
All softwares that are allowed to use the TPM, including the OS, won't become magically without bugs. A bad bug in those softwares (that are trusted by the TPM) can be used by an unauthorized person to manipulate the TPM and access its services like decryption of confidential data.
The clock is ticking... will Firefox beat IE's response time?
_ 2006_ 2006
according to secunia, IE7 has more severe bugs unpatched, the most severe also affects IE6 and is known since 2006-10-30
http://secunia.com/product/12366/?task=advisories
http://secunia.com/product/12434/?task=advisories
how will a BSD resurgence magically save us from memory leaks and bad UIs, which are userland issues?
Oh noes! Microsoft has plans for using BSD code, once more ?
The trouble is: how do we make up our minds about the issue if we reject scientific consensus as proof? The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.
6 /11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
You will find a lot of homeworks here:
http://www.realclimate.org/ "Climate science from climate scientists"
Click on the "archive" link at the top.
Try this recent one first, as it debunks several common unscientific claims:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
Then you can also use their search engine with keywords like "myth".
Please also note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives references to the studies that its reports are based on.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Ok, you have a point. My answer to the grandparent was a bit too long (his mistake was that he thought that "fusion reaction" was the opposite of "nuclear reaction").
But I wonder what are the examples of fission reactions that can be exactly reverted by a fusion reaction, and vice versa. In these cases, one reaction would be the exact opposite of the other.
Last I heard nuclear reactions are the opposite of fusion reactions. Are they going nuclear or going fusion?
No. Fission and fusion reactions are two different kinds of nuclear reactions.
Though you can call them "opposite nuclear reactions" , this would be misleading since both reactions can be a source of energy.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The above word "indirectly" means that anything GPLed that is distributed by Novell must be royalty-free for everyone, since GPL allows "indirect" copying by everyone (a copy of a copy of a copy...).
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
This means that , should MS enforce its patents on other open source companies, not even Novell can distribute GPL programs covered by the same patents.
0.7 does not have these benefits yet; you must connect specifically to a set group of people (mostly Freenet developers) and anyone you connect to in 0.7 is able to tell what you insert/retrieve.
I thought 0.7 was a friend-to-friend network, meaning you only connect to friends that you know and trust, and they forward files and search requests to their own friends, anonymously. This means only your trusted friends can retrieve files from your computer. This sounds quite safer than 0.5 where anyone can retrieve files from you and then sue you if you sent them forbidden files.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend-to-friend