No. There's a fine distinction between writing an entertaining or interesting book and writing a book that has literary merit, just as there's a difference between an entertaining film or a film that has artistic merit. Generally, the distinction hinges upon the work's amenability to literary analysis and evaluation--a novel can be deeply entertaining while having shallow, flat characters and saying nothing beyond a reaffirmation of the author's political biases (most Tom Clancy novels) or a novel can be a deep and insightful exploration of the human condition, capturing strong and sophisticated characters (most of Dickens' work). Literary analysis? This distinction exists because some people want to make money/fame of it, not because some books (by dead white guys or by distinctly not dead white guys) are "good." In the end, those people do have some say in what survives history, but it's not because of factually determinable feature like "insight into the human condition" or other such BS. Plenty of say also resides in the masses that *read* books (this is part Dickens success, fyi--he was a pop novelist).
In other news, I think both Clancy and Dickens suck. But I recently discovered I like Stephen King, and suspect he has enough of the critically acclaimable malarky to get their vote as well.
Uh, the whole metric wasn't just a matter of misguided nationalism. The conversion of the US industrial base from one set of units to another would have entailed a non-zero investment. I agree the return would have been worth it (standardization with the rest of the world, including the scientific community that supplied the technology and products manufactured), but there was a real cost beyond pride.
As "funny" as that may be, I'd bet the porn industry was wary of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy far before the general public. I imagine it was a much more immediate matter of survival for them, in addition to being a more rapidly obvious problem.
In a purely logical system, there is no difference. They are tokens that represent objects that we can neither prove or disprove exist.
Unfortunately, the whole of human endeavors that compose society is hardly a logical anything. Sanity (similar to crime) is a matter of who has the keys and which side of the wall they are on. Since the people of 'God' by and large have the keys (or enough influence to intimidate those who do), they get to dictate what sanity is outside of the walls and who is inside of those walls (presumably those who send their prayers to the 'King of the Potato People').
As such, sanity is often less a scientific/medical condition and more a majority decision.
I agree that Britannica's comments are disingenuous at best, but they are not wrong. What's wrong is having a discussion at this level of detail.
To address your point directly, there is no discussion of error/accuracy/inaccuracy percentages, as such a measure is implausible. Would one count the number of facts and then state what percent are erroneous? Then who decides what in an article counts as a "fact" (and no, I'm not proposing relativism for truth)? Should all facts be given equal weight (e.g., is having the 5th decimal place wrong comparable to having the wrong stochiometric balance)? Since there is no logical framework to discuss these questions (and frankly, I can't see it would be worthwhile to do so), the only thing that can be studied scientifically (in the strict sense of the word) is error-rate and even that is misleading (as there is no ready way to compare magnitude of error).
Thus, Nature was wrong (both in the semantic and practical sense) in its headline. I would have preferred the title "Wikipedia-Britannica Error-Rate Comparison," followed by the data, some statistical analysis, and qualifications about the inadequacy of the comparison (but then, no one likes to admit that what they've done doesn't really get to the heart of the issue).
There are plenty of engineering-like judgements to be drawn about the practicality of Wikipedia over Britannica (given the cost difference and acceptably comparable error-rate/magnitude for day-to-day use), indeed any/. discussion re: wikipedia makes them. And therein lies the rub; Britannica is certainly right to attack on the details (which as I illustrated are somewhat non-sensical), but the details are largely irrelevant to the real point of the discussion (and shame on Nature for not emphasizing that).
I agree that "X" (e.g., US) companies who decide to do business elsewhere as an end-run around labour laws should expect to get flack from the lawmakers of country X. To some extent, I would also expect companies to stay within the bounds of legality on their products as well, but this is a grey area.
However, Google does not fit this mold in either case. Google is delivering a product to China, not producing one there (at least, not with this venture). Furthermore, the limited local production of the product (i.e., running the servers) does not (in anyway I can see) restrict freedoms. The product itself (searching), well, yes it is restricted--but it is advertised as such. I can buy cable tv in the US--but I can't expect that it have every show. Likewise, I can buy a gun or a car, but there are laws about how I can use them--laws that are explained to me and that I agree with implicitly when I buy the product because I want to use it regardless of the restriction. I cannot see how selling this product (Google's restricted.cn search) would be illegal in the US--maybe no one would buy it, sure--but I don't think it would be illegal.
So how's it not in agreement with the laws of the US?
Yes: ITAR - International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Note that it covers far more than just arms--cryptography is included, for example.
Also, the Westinghouse nuclear division responsible for DoD work (nuclear submarines and carriers) was acquired by Bechtel, though due to the level of government control of these facilities, the only thing that changed was the signs on the laboratory.
"...and furthermore, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation. No doubt the Pakistanis, Saudis, Iranians, etc, don't give two shits about who they wiretap - any conversations taking place in such a regime are very likely to have been tapped on the other end."
I agree there is little reason to expect privacy from foreign governments, but foreign governments cannot come to my home and take me away for trial in their courts. Furthermore, I would hope that if for some strange reason the US saw fit to prosecute me, that such evidence obtained by foreign countries in circumvention of our laws would be inamissable.
"The other reason why this whole affair is deeply idiotic is that everyone's going off half-cocked over a series of hypothetical situations. Nobody outside the NSA, a few members of Congress, and some in the Administration know the true depth and scale of this program."
"Idiotic?" "Unsettling," perhaps, but not idiotic. Given the advertised behavior of the current administration, it would be reasonable to conclude that depth and scale of this program might be extensive and worthwhile of investigation. There doesn't appear to be an ongoing criminal investigation, so it would be reasonable for a concerned citizen to pursue a civil one via the courts.
"Here's the other big problem: the Fourth Amendment prevents 'unreasonable' searched and seizures without 'probable cause.' Exactly what is 'unreasonable' about these intercepts - if someone is talking with a known al-Qaeada associate in a suspected terror cell, it would seem altogether reasonable that the government should be able to listen in on that conversation - regardless if the other end is in Kandahar or Kansas."
I agree with your statement regarding contacting suspected terror suspects, but the program canvases phone calls--there is nothing to identify individuals who are suspected of participating in crime. For example, I've made some phone calls to my wife when she was travelling in Malaysia. Should the government be able to monitor those, simply because they are to a foreign country--even a predominately Muslim one? I don't agree with that.
"We're facing an enemy that has already planted sleeper cells within the United States and has the avowed objective of killing as many Americans as they can. After 9/11 there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how we didn't 'put the dots together' - and now once the government finally tries to do just that, there's even more wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Is the topic of discussion putting dots together--or gathering more dots? Being currently employeed by Uncle Sam, I'd agree that we the representatives of the people could do a lot more to put the dots together, but I'm not sure that asking for more dots is the right thing to do--given that we can't handle the ones we have currently. Furthermore, determining FISA should do a better job is one thing, circumventing it is another.
"However, civil libertarians aren't going to be taken seriously until they realize that there is a threat out there, and our law enforcement and military need tools that can prevent an attack like 9/11 - or something worse. They have to realize that for the majority of Americans, the idea that the government might intercept their conversations if they're talking to someone abroad suspected of being an al-Qaeda associate isn't a particularly big worry for them. Going about half-cocked and crying wolf over and over again isn't persuasive - if anything it's only going to cement the idea in many American's heads that groups like the ACLU are altogether unconcerned with protecting this nation against another terrorist attack."
This I largely agree with in facts, but not implications. Yes, the executive branch needs legal tools--but do they need ones beyond what existed previously? To what extent do they need confidential ones? Yes, the American public is largely unconcerned with this issue--of course, they are al
Another good one for required reading would be "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. It does well illustrating the consequences and pitfalls of mathematical ignorance in general, not just regarding statistics.
As an undergrad math major, I thoroughly enjoyed my Mathematical Logic course, including Goedel's Theorem (as a sidenote, I recommend the professor's textbook, though it's now out-of-print I think).
But so-called "Ivory Tower" mathematicians don't get it. The statement used in Goedel's theorem is not a useful one (despite being true) - and Goedel's theorem says little about our ability to prove or not prove useful statements in mathematics. It is an interesting sidenote (one often abused by philosophers and "intellectual" opponents of mathematics), but says little about the tool-other than it is limited in some way. Is it an important way, a way that will inhibit our ability to use the tool? That's not clear based on the Goedel's results.
How is this funny? The decline of technically competent personnel in the government (not to mention businesses) is about as far from a laughing matter as you can get.
Jazzer hit a main issue right on the head--reform the rules all you want, without competent people to make what will inevitably be subjective decisions, the system will be burden vice a boon.
You all have done well to point out the basic physics argument: for a given kinetic energy, it all has to go somewhere in an accident. Decreasing mass and velocity decrease that initial kinetic energy, so less of it has to be removed in an accident.
Kudos, you passed HS physics.
But this wasn't the whole point of the article. In fact, most of the article was about what is the best way to get rid of that kinetic energy--especially the kinetic energy in the passenger. For example, seat belts and airbags end up being (surprise, surprise) engineering tradeoffs. The slower the components decelerate the passengers, the lower the stress on the passenger--that is, until it works to slowly to prevent them from smacking into the dash. Oh, not to mention the vast variability in weight and stature (aka mass and lever arm) that a designer would have to envelop in the design.
And what about the mass of the vehicle? Various people have (as astutely as any good HS physics student should) that lower mass lowers the input energy in a crash. HOWEVER, lower mass also means less mass to absorb the input energy in an accident--that means higher stresses in materials, which means greater deformations. Again, the problem is going to be a balancing act. How does the designer reduce mass while retaining the ability to disperse energy? Pun intended, there is a break even point. Can it be improved by material selection? Maybe, but does that increase the cost of manufacturing a car--or disposing of it? These aren't easy questions with obvious answers. Any idiot could get an engineering degree if they were.
Of course, this was all the real discussion of the article.
why do I give a shit if EA can't peddle its warez to minors? Can someone explain why I should care or this is this an issue only teenagers and the people who stand to loose money care about?
For the same reason thet ACLU cares about the rights of the KKK, presumably. Presumably they aren't interested in lynching people (they are stereotypically a buncha peace-loving hippies afterall), but they are interested in preventing the establishment of legal precedent to restrict the rights of a minority group because that minority has opinions that differ from the majority.
What if, by some "heaven" sent miracle, the law survives judicial review? There will be legislators nation-wide that will snap up the opportunity to win the votes of parents who want to worry a little less about their kids; and don't think they won't eye (successfully or not) other commercially consumed art (if today's box office bombs can be called such a thing)-you might have to give back your thirty silver in taxes for the states' legal fees.
Of course by now, videogame makers, unable to make as much of a profit on games that portray (nebulously defined) violent and sexual themes, will invest themselves elsewhere. So it's not like you'd be able to spend it on such games if you were so inclined.
What is the operating temperature of the engine compared to the environment? What pressure does the steam system operate at?
Also, how much does this addition weigh? So I add 10 kW; how much of it is spent on hauling around a steam engine?
I'd put a nuclear power plant in my backyard if 1) I got the profits for the electricity and 2) I was the regulator (or the NRC...they know a thing or two).
As for expensive, well, not really. The prices are largely comparable to other energy sources and could be cheaper if the regulatory environment were relaxed comparable to the advances in technology.
Based on my experience (as a gov't employee who occasionally deals with software), it costs more to get the source code as well as executible. I imagine it would be even more expensive to demand that, in addition to giving the code to Uncle Sam, these companies give the code to everyone.
While I'm all for open source, I also don't like paying taxes (or course, this is why I push for already OSS solutions in the first place). There would have to be a sensible balance between cost and desire for openness.
I disagree. I work for NASA's (now former) partner (the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) in this enterprise, and NASA pulled the plug. Their language is NASA-ese for "we're diluting the project so that we can throw it away in a few years and no one will notice." Why, for example, would NASA ask the NRC for projects? The NRC has nothing to do with designing new applications for nuclear energy (they are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, afterall)--that's the Department of Energy's job. And even if NASA were to partner with a different organization in the Department of Energy, no other group in DOE has substantial design experience in space and weight efficient systems--why would they? They don't have to float their reactors.
No, if indeed the posting you referred to reflects actual NASA statements, they are little more than politicking tripe.
Actually, say no more to the nuclear engines: Albany Times Union. I submitted this as a topic a few days ago, but to no avail. Sorry you can't read the whole article, but the first few lines gives away the gist.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, I think both Clancy and Dickens suck. But I recently discovered I like Stephen King, and suspect he has enough of the critically acclaimable malarky to get their vote as well.
Uh, the whole metric wasn't just a matter of misguided nationalism. The conversion of the US industrial base from one set of units to another would have entailed a non-zero investment. I agree the return would have been worth it (standardization with the rest of the world, including the scientific community that supplied the technology and products manufactured), but there was a real cost beyond pride.
As "funny" as that may be, I'd bet the porn industry was wary of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy far before the general public. I imagine it was a much more immediate matter of survival for them, in addition to being a more rapidly obvious problem.
In a purely logical system, there is no difference. They are tokens that represent objects that we can neither prove or disprove exist.
Unfortunately, the whole of human endeavors that compose society is hardly a logical anything. Sanity (similar to crime) is a matter of who has the keys and which side of the wall they are on. Since the people of 'God' by and large have the keys (or enough influence to intimidate those who do), they get to dictate what sanity is outside of the walls and who is inside of those walls (presumably those who send their prayers to the 'King of the Potato People').
As such, sanity is often less a scientific/medical condition and more a majority decision.
I agree that Britannica's comments are disingenuous at best, but they are not wrong. What's wrong is having a discussion at this level of detail.
/. discussion re: wikipedia makes them. And therein lies the rub; Britannica is certainly right to attack on the details (which as I illustrated are somewhat non-sensical), but the details are largely irrelevant to the real point of the discussion (and shame on Nature for not emphasizing that).
To address your point directly, there is no discussion of error/accuracy/inaccuracy percentages, as such a measure is implausible. Would one count the number of facts and then state what percent are erroneous? Then who decides what in an article counts as a "fact" (and no, I'm not proposing relativism for truth)? Should all facts be given equal weight (e.g., is having the 5th decimal place wrong comparable to having the wrong stochiometric balance)? Since there is no logical framework to discuss these questions (and frankly, I can't see it would be worthwhile to do so), the only thing that can be studied scientifically (in the strict sense of the word) is error-rate and even that is misleading (as there is no ready way to compare magnitude of error).
Thus, Nature was wrong (both in the semantic and practical sense) in its headline. I would have preferred the title "Wikipedia-Britannica Error-Rate Comparison," followed by the data, some statistical analysis, and qualifications about the inadequacy of the comparison (but then, no one likes to admit that what they've done doesn't really get to the heart of the issue).
There are plenty of engineering-like judgements to be drawn about the practicality of Wikipedia over Britannica (given the cost difference and acceptably comparable error-rate/magnitude for day-to-day use), indeed any
I agree that "X" (e.g., US) companies who decide to do business elsewhere as an end-run around labour laws should expect to get flack from the lawmakers of country X. To some extent, I would also expect companies to stay within the bounds of legality on their products as well, but this is a grey area.
.cn search) would be illegal in the US--maybe no one would buy it, sure--but I don't think it would be illegal.
However, Google does not fit this mold in either case. Google is delivering a product to China, not producing one there (at least, not with this venture). Furthermore, the limited local production of the product (i.e., running the servers) does not (in anyway I can see) restrict freedoms. The product itself (searching), well, yes it is restricted--but it is advertised as such. I can buy cable tv in the US--but I can't expect that it have every show. Likewise, I can buy a gun or a car, but there are laws about how I can use them--laws that are explained to me and that I agree with implicitly when I buy the product because I want to use it regardless of the restriction. I cannot see how selling this product (Google's restricted
So how's it not in agreement with the laws of the US?
Yes: ITAR - International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Note that it covers far more than just arms--cryptography is included, for example.
Also, the Westinghouse nuclear division responsible for DoD work (nuclear submarines and carriers) was acquired by Bechtel, though due to the level of government control of these facilities, the only thing that changed was the signs on the laboratory.
"...and furthermore, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation. No doubt the Pakistanis, Saudis, Iranians, etc, don't give two shits about who they wiretap - any conversations taking place in such a regime are very likely to have been tapped on the other end."
I agree there is little reason to expect privacy from foreign governments, but foreign governments cannot come to my home and take me away for trial in their courts. Furthermore, I would hope that if for some strange reason the US saw fit to prosecute me, that such evidence obtained by foreign countries in circumvention of our laws would be inamissable.
"The other reason why this whole affair is deeply idiotic is that everyone's going off half-cocked over a series of hypothetical situations. Nobody outside the NSA, a few members of Congress, and some in the Administration know the true depth and scale of this program."
"Idiotic?" "Unsettling," perhaps, but not idiotic. Given the advertised behavior of the current administration, it would be reasonable to conclude that depth and scale of this program might be extensive and worthwhile of investigation. There doesn't appear to be an ongoing criminal investigation, so it would be reasonable for a concerned citizen to pursue a civil one via the courts.
"Here's the other big problem: the Fourth Amendment prevents 'unreasonable' searched and seizures without 'probable cause.' Exactly what is 'unreasonable' about these intercepts - if someone is talking with a known al-Qaeada associate in a suspected terror cell, it would seem altogether reasonable that the government should be able to listen in on that conversation - regardless if the other end is in Kandahar or Kansas."
I agree with your statement regarding contacting suspected terror suspects, but the program canvases phone calls--there is nothing to identify individuals who are suspected of participating in crime. For example, I've made some phone calls to my wife when she was travelling in Malaysia. Should the government be able to monitor those, simply because they are to a foreign country--even a predominately Muslim one? I don't agree with that.
"We're facing an enemy that has already planted sleeper cells within the United States and has the avowed objective of killing as many Americans as they can. After 9/11 there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how we didn't 'put the dots together' - and now once the government finally tries to do just that, there's even more wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Is the topic of discussion putting dots together--or gathering more dots? Being currently employeed by Uncle Sam, I'd agree that we the representatives of the people could do a lot more to put the dots together, but I'm not sure that asking for more dots is the right thing to do--given that we can't handle the ones we have currently. Furthermore, determining FISA should do a better job is one thing, circumventing it is another.
"However, civil libertarians aren't going to be taken seriously until they realize that there is a threat out there, and our law enforcement and military need tools that can prevent an attack like 9/11 - or something worse. They have to realize that for the majority of Americans, the idea that the government might intercept their conversations if they're talking to someone abroad suspected of being an al-Qaeda associate isn't a particularly big worry for them. Going about half-cocked and crying wolf over and over again isn't persuasive - if anything it's only going to cement the idea in many American's heads that groups like the ACLU are altogether unconcerned with protecting this nation against another terrorist attack."
This I largely agree with in facts, but not implications. Yes, the executive branch needs legal tools--but do they need ones beyond what existed previously? To what extent do they need confidential ones? Yes, the American public is largely unconcerned with this issue--of course, they are al
Another good one for required reading would be "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. It does well illustrating the consequences and pitfalls of mathematical ignorance in general, not just regarding statistics.
As an undergrad math major, I thoroughly enjoyed my Mathematical Logic course, including Goedel's Theorem (as a sidenote, I recommend the professor's textbook, though it's now out-of-print I think).
But so-called "Ivory Tower" mathematicians don't get it. The statement used in Goedel's theorem is not a useful one (despite being true) - and Goedel's theorem says little about our ability to prove or not prove useful statements in mathematics. It is an interesting sidenote (one often abused by philosophers and "intellectual" opponents of mathematics), but says little about the tool-other than it is limited in some way. Is it an important way, a way that will inhibit our ability to use the tool? That's not clear based on the Goedel's results.
How is this funny? The decline of technically competent personnel in the government (not to mention businesses) is about as far from a laughing matter as you can get.
Jazzer hit a main issue right on the head--reform the rules all you want, without competent people to make what will inevitably be subjective decisions, the system will be burden vice a boon.
Carl
You all have done well to point out the basic physics argument: for a given kinetic energy, it all has to go somewhere in an accident. Decreasing mass and velocity decrease that initial kinetic energy, so less of it has to be removed in an accident.
Kudos, you passed HS physics.
But this wasn't the whole point of the article. In fact, most of the article was about what is the best way to get rid of that kinetic energy--especially the kinetic energy in the passenger. For example, seat belts and airbags end up being (surprise, surprise) engineering tradeoffs. The slower the components decelerate the passengers, the lower the stress on the passenger--that is, until it works to slowly to prevent them from smacking into the dash. Oh, not to mention the vast variability in weight and stature (aka mass and lever arm) that a designer would have to envelop in the design.
And what about the mass of the vehicle? Various people have (as astutely as any good HS physics student should) that lower mass lowers the input energy in a crash. HOWEVER, lower mass also means less mass to absorb the input energy in an accident--that means higher stresses in materials, which means greater deformations. Again, the problem is going to be a balancing act. How does the designer reduce mass while retaining the ability to disperse energy? Pun intended, there is a break even point. Can it be improved by material selection? Maybe, but does that increase the cost of manufacturing a car--or disposing of it? These aren't easy questions with obvious answers. Any idiot could get an engineering degree if they were.
Of course, this was all the real discussion of the article.
Carl
why do I give a shit if EA can't peddle its warez to minors? Can someone explain why I should care or this is this an issue only teenagers and the people who stand to loose money care about?
For the same reason thet ACLU cares about the rights of the KKK, presumably. Presumably they aren't interested in lynching people (they are stereotypically a buncha peace-loving hippies afterall), but they are interested in preventing the establishment of legal precedent to restrict the rights of a minority group because that minority has opinions that differ from the majority.
What if, by some "heaven" sent miracle, the law survives judicial review? There will be legislators nation-wide that will snap up the opportunity to win the votes of parents who want to worry a little less about their kids; and don't think they won't eye (successfully or not) other commercially consumed art (if today's box office bombs can be called such a thing)-you might have to give back your thirty silver in taxes for the states' legal fees.
Of course by now, videogame makers, unable to make as much of a profit on games that portray (nebulously defined) violent and sexual themes, will invest themselves elsewhere. So it's not like you'd be able to spend it on such games if you were so inclined.
What is the operating temperature of the engine compared to the environment? What pressure does the steam system operate at? Also, how much does this addition weigh? So I add 10 kW; how much of it is spent on hauling around a steam engine?
I'd put a nuclear power plant in my backyard if 1) I got the profits for the electricity and 2) I was the regulator (or the NRC...they know a thing or two).
As for expensive, well, not really. The prices are largely comparable to other energy sources and could be cheaper if the regulatory environment were relaxed comparable to the advances in technology.
Based on my experience (as a gov't employee who occasionally deals with software), it costs more to get the source code as well as executible. I imagine it would be even more expensive to demand that, in addition to giving the code to Uncle Sam, these companies give the code to everyone.
While I'm all for open source, I also don't like paying taxes (or course, this is why I push for already OSS solutions in the first place). There would have to be a sensible balance between cost and desire for openness.
I disagree. I work for NASA's (now former) partner (the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) in this enterprise, and NASA pulled the plug. Their language is NASA-ese for "we're diluting the project so that we can throw it away in a few years and no one will notice." Why, for example, would NASA ask the NRC for projects? The NRC has nothing to do with designing new applications for nuclear energy (they are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, afterall)--that's the Department of Energy's job. And even if NASA were to partner with a different organization in the Department of Energy, no other group in DOE has substantial design experience in space and weight efficient systems--why would they? They don't have to float their reactors. No, if indeed the posting you referred to reflects actual NASA statements, they are little more than politicking tripe.
Actually, say no more to the nuclear engines: Albany Times Union. I submitted this as a topic a few days ago, but to no avail. Sorry you can't read the whole article, but the first few lines gives away the gist.