This new experiment is not as crazy as you think. If you RTA, you will realize it's simply a re-working of the famous Ganzfeld experiments.
These experiments were carried out by a number of researchers, but perhaps gained the most support from the involvement of reknowned researcher Daryl Bem. Bem performed a meta-analysis of many of their results which showed a weak positive result for psi. As well, he analyzed and critiqued the methodology of numerous Ganzfeld studies.
Now before anyone starts saying that Bem is simply just another nutjob, he's well known for his rock-solid methodology and is in fact required reading for the Psychology GRE.
Bem also never claimed that these experiments were necessarily solid evidence for psi, but they definitely show an anomolous result that can't simply be dismissed. Something funny is going on in these exeperiments, even if psi does not exist. That fact alone means more research along these lines is warranted as there is something there that warrants an explanation.
It sounds like these new researchers are trying to replicate the Ganzfeld studies but eliminate some of the possible confounds that could have existed in the earlier experiments. I say good job.
I will only give one reference here to the appropriate wikipedia article, as it contains links to relevant papers written by Bem and others. Additionally, information on Daryl Bem and his work is easily found by simply googling his name.
I agree, the problem with the gparent poster's viewpoint is that they mis-understand the purpose of a CS degree. A CS degree is not supposed to train you to be a programmer. A CS degree is supposed to teach you information theory (ie how and in what ways can information of all sorts be manipulated? Which ways are more efficient? How can certain problems be solved? Does certain information demand certain solutions? etc.)
You get a CS degree if you want to do research into information science (or any of its sub-disciplines like AI, databases, algorithms etc.), if you want to teach at a university or if you simply have a burning curiosity to KNOW how these things work (and are independently wealthy).
If what you want is to be a programmer, then for God's sake don't go to university and get a CS degree. Go to college and get a computer programming diploma. You don't get a degree in computer science if what you want to do (or what you are doing) is computer programming.
I speak from experience. I started school at university in Computer Science and partway through I got a job as a computer programmer. Realizing that what I really needed for my job was not computer science, but computer programming, I switched to a college and got a diploma in computer programming.
However, after working for 8 years doing computer programming, I got sick of how brain dead my job was and went back to school. I've now just finished a degree in Cognitive Science (computational cognition) and I'm planning a career in research (starting with grad school).
The essential formula for determining what kind of education you should get is easy, just compare your goals with what the education provides.
Goals: Research, Teaching, Curiosity, Critical thinking, problem solving Appropriate Education: University - Computer Science
Goals: IT, network administration, DBA, programming etc. Appropriate Education: College - Computer Programming, Computer Technician, Network Admin etc.
Yes, but since like 60% of BitTorrent users are running BitComet, it doesn't seem to make a difference. I was using Azureus until my ISP started throttling, when all my d/ls dropped to about 2kbps. I switched to BitComet and turned on header encryption and my speeds instantly jumped up to 190kbps!
So even restricted to only other BitComet users, my speeds are ten times faster.
Only problem is now I have to do my filesharing from Windows:(
So I reboot to windows before going to bed and turn on BitComet. In the morning, I shutdown BitComet and boot back to Linux...
Wow. Touched a nerve there didn' I? Emotional tirade aside, you were right about one thing, I was in a hurry when I typed that post. I was eating a late lunch after a long day of troubleshooting.
Regardless, I will now take the proper time to address your concerns.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty in attacking your use of the word "proving", but it smacked of the semantic word games played by Humanities students worldwide. The game is to use emotionally laden words to convince people; rather than actual facts or objective science. By using the word "proving" (regardless of colloquial definitions) you introduce an emotional aspect into peoples' cognitive processes as they absorb the sentence (Hrm... well this theory is supported, but he's right, they can't actually *prove* it can they?).
Whether or not it's what you intended (and I don't believe it is what you intended - given that my comments made you so angry), it introduces an element of emotional/mental equivocation in the mind of the reader. I abhor such trickery (had you done it on purpose) and maybe came off a little strong because of it.
As for your claim that distinguishing between evidence and coherence is redundant, might I direct you to the following book by the good Prof. Thagard on the subject. Or you could go straight to his website and read the articles on the subject he has published in peer-reviewed journals.
Evidence and coherence are not the same thing, and distinguishing between them is not redundant. Evidence is (essentially) empirical observations, whereas coherence is a process akin to (but largely superseding) logical deduction by which we arrive at certain conclusions/end states.
Now for the reasons I did not post any references to support my claims, I was (as I mentioned earlier) in a hurry and secondly, there had been an ample amount of supporting references already posted in this very forum. Here's a sample:
An article from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (which has references to further supporting articles published in such peer-reviewed journals as Science, Climate Dynamics and the Journal of Climate):
So there you have it, references and data supporting the arguments I made in my post. As to addressing the arguments that you made in your original post (in so far as you made any) the above references should suffice. Your numbered list amounts to nothing more than an enumeration of possible alternatives, with no data, evidence or references whatsoever to demonstrate that any of them is more likely than the currently accepted scientific consensus.
Also, you accuse me of not RTFA, well, I did, and by the time I got through with it, I had noticed many of the discrepencies pointed out i
You have a faulty grasp of how science works. Nothing is ever *proven* in science. Things can only be *disproven*.
Only in math can things be proven, and even then it's just a logical proof within an assumed framework (thank you Godel).
Theories and hypotheses are accepted or rejected based on the weight of evidence supporting them and their coherence with the rest of the accepted body of science.
Currently the theory that nastier hurricanes are caused by global warming has more evidenciary support and is more coherent than competing theories, thus it is the currently accepted explanation.
Demanding "Proof" simply shows your ignorance of how science functions...
The link between the growing intensity of hurricanes and global warming is not controversial. The vast majority of the evidence currently supports this link, and the current scientific consensus is that there is a link.
The only reason there appears to be a controversy is because of the media's misguided efforts to present a "balanced" story, leading them to quote any crackpot that believes the opposite of the current scientific consensus. Like that FreeRepublic author.
Seriously, saying there's a controversy because some random internet author from a grassroots convervative organisation who has no scientific background claims there is one, is like saying that the moon is made of blue cheese because the hobo yelling at traffic says so. Never mind the actual objective science that says otherwise...
All you are going on is pure speculation. You want to believe that someone is screwing you over for a couple of bucks, so you will wantonly endanger hundreds of other people on a public flight because you refuse to believe that your phone could cause interference???
I don't give a RA about your doubts. Look up the facts. Do some research. Ask an expert. Hell, there are plenty of *informed* people who have posted to this very article with evidence that cell phones can indeed cause interference with navigation eq.
WiFi is more dangerous *in your opinion*? What the hell do you know about it? What are your sources? Why should anyone care about your opinion?
Question 1) Because it's annoying Question 2) No Question 3) Yes, but only for conversations in which only one side is heard
As for *why* public cell use is annoying, it doesn't matter what the medium is, if we can only hear one side of the conversation, it interrupts and puts more demands on our attention (ever been annoyed by the guy in the next cubicle talking loudly on the phone? - I say loudly in this context becdause cubes are built to muffle noise so you won't generally hear normal conversation).
Our brains are trained to know what a turn-taking conversation is and so can tune it out. However, if you can only hear one side of a conversation, it's like constantly telling your brain to start paying attention because there's a new conversation starting up!
So, in conclusion, talking on a cell in public is just plain rude. Unless you deliberately want to be a jackass, go somewhere private to have your conversation, don't disturb everyone else.
Heh... it says that the NRC is a "technical co-sponsor" of the WMSCI 2005 on their web page, however, I can't seem to find ANY mention of WMSCI 2005 on NRC's website.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like "Clever Hans" syndrome to me.
It sounds like you have "floaters" in your vitreous humour, or possibly migraine headaches (due the nausea).
If I were you, I'd go to the doctor and get it checked out.
These experiments were carried out by a number of researchers, but perhaps gained the most support from the involvement of reknowned researcher Daryl Bem. Bem performed a meta-analysis of many of their results which showed a weak positive result for psi. As well, he analyzed and critiqued the methodology of numerous Ganzfeld studies.
Now before anyone starts saying that Bem is simply just another nutjob, he's well known for his rock-solid methodology and is in fact required reading for the Psychology GRE.
Bem also never claimed that these experiments were necessarily solid evidence for psi, but they definitely show an anomolous result that can't simply be dismissed. Something funny is going on in these exeperiments, even if psi does not exist. That fact alone means more research along these lines is warranted as there is something there that warrants an explanation.
It sounds like these new researchers are trying to replicate the Ganzfeld studies but eliminate some of the possible confounds that could have existed in the earlier experiments. I say good job.
I will only give one reference here to the appropriate wikipedia article, as it contains links to relevant papers written by Bem and others. Additionally, information on Daryl Bem and his work is easily found by simply googling his name.
I agree, the problem with the gparent poster's viewpoint is that they mis-understand the purpose of a CS degree. A CS degree is not supposed to train you to be a programmer. A CS degree is supposed to teach you information theory (ie how and in what ways can information of all sorts be manipulated? Which ways are more efficient? How can certain problems be solved? Does certain information demand certain solutions? etc.)
You get a CS degree if you want to do research into information science (or any of its sub-disciplines like AI, databases, algorithms etc.), if you want to teach at a university or if you simply have a burning curiosity to KNOW how these things work (and are independently wealthy).
If what you want is to be a programmer, then for God's sake don't go to university and get a CS degree. Go to college and get a computer programming diploma. You don't get a degree in computer science if what you want to do (or what you are doing) is computer programming.
I speak from experience. I started school at university in Computer Science and partway through I got a job as a computer programmer. Realizing that what I really needed for my job was not computer science, but computer programming, I switched to a college and got a diploma in computer programming.
However, after working for 8 years doing computer programming, I got sick of how brain dead my job was and went back to school. I've now just finished a degree in Cognitive Science (computational cognition) and I'm planning a career in research (starting with grad school).
The essential formula for determining what kind of education you should get is easy, just compare your goals with what the education provides.
Goals:
Research, Teaching, Curiosity, Critical thinking, problem solving
Appropriate Education:
University - Computer Science
Goals:
IT, network administration, DBA, programming etc.
Appropriate Education:
College - Computer Programming, Computer Technician, Network Admin etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Yes, but since like 60% of BitTorrent users are running BitComet, it doesn't seem to make a difference. I was using Azureus until my ISP started throttling, when all my d/ls dropped to about 2kbps. I switched to BitComet and turned on header encryption and my speeds instantly jumped up to 190kbps!
:(
So even restricted to only other BitComet users, my speeds are ten times faster.
Only problem is now I have to do my filesharing from Windows
So I reboot to windows before going to bed and turn on BitComet. In the morning, I shutdown BitComet and boot back to Linux...
I know BitComet has encrypted headers, but as far I was aware, Azureus does not. Is there a plugin somewhere I am unaware of?
Wow. Touched a nerve there didn' I? Emotional tirade aside, you were right about one thing, I was in a hurry when I typed that post. I was eating a late lunch after a long day of troubleshooting.
Regardless, I will now take the proper time to address your concerns.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty in attacking your use of the word "proving", but it smacked of the semantic word games played by Humanities students worldwide. The game is to use emotionally laden words to convince people; rather than actual facts or objective science. By using the word "proving" (regardless of colloquial definitions) you introduce an emotional aspect into peoples' cognitive processes as they absorb the sentence (Hrm... well this theory is supported, but he's right, they can't actually *prove* it can they?).
Whether or not it's what you intended (and I don't believe it is what you intended - given that my comments made you so angry), it introduces an element of emotional/mental equivocation in the mind of the reader. I abhor such trickery (had you done it on purpose) and maybe came off a little strong because of it.
As for your claim that distinguishing between evidence and coherence is redundant, might I direct you to the following book by the good Prof. Thagard on the subject. Or you could go straight to his website and read the articles on the subject he has published in peer-reviewed journals.
Evidence and coherence are not the same thing, and distinguishing between them is not redundant. Evidence is (essentially) empirical observations, whereas coherence is a process akin to (but largely superseding) logical deduction by which we arrive at certain conclusions/end states.
Now for the reasons I did not post any references to support my claims, I was (as I mentioned earlier) in a hurry and secondly, there had been an ample amount of supporting references already posted in this very forum. Here's a sample:
The original article from Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/#new/
An article from a reputable Japanese project building climate simulations:
http://www.prime-intl.co.jp/kyosei-2nd/PDF/24/11_m urakami.pdf/
Information from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Tempe rature_Comparison.png/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming/
An article from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (which has references to further supporting articles published in such peer-reviewed journals as Science, Climate Dynamics and the Journal of Climate):
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html/
An excellent comment from this discussion itself:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162830 &cid=13606953/
So there you have it, references and data supporting the arguments I made in my post. As to addressing the arguments that you made in your original post (in so far as you made any) the above references should suffice. Your numbered list amounts to nothing more than an enumeration of possible alternatives, with no data, evidence or references whatsoever to demonstrate that any of them is more likely than the currently accepted scientific consensus.
Also, you accuse me of not RTFA, well, I did, and by the time I got through with it, I had noticed many of the discrepencies pointed out i
You have a faulty grasp of how science works. Nothing is ever *proven* in science. Things can only be *disproven*.
Only in math can things be proven, and even then it's just a logical proof within an assumed framework (thank you Godel).
Theories and hypotheses are accepted or rejected based on the weight of evidence supporting them and their coherence with the rest of the accepted body of science.
Currently the theory that nastier hurricanes are caused by global warming has more evidenciary support and is more coherent than competing theories, thus it is the currently accepted explanation.
Demanding "Proof" simply shows your ignorance of how science functions...
The link between the growing intensity of hurricanes and global warming is not controversial. The vast majority of the evidence currently supports this link, and the current scientific consensus is that there is a link.
The only reason there appears to be a controversy is because of the media's misguided efforts to present a "balanced" story, leading them to quote any crackpot that believes the opposite of the current scientific consensus. Like that FreeRepublic author.
Seriously, saying there's a controversy because some random internet author from a grassroots convervative organisation who has no scientific background claims there is one, is like saying that the moon is made of blue cheese because the hobo yelling at traffic says so. Never mind the actual objective science that says otherwise...
All you are going on is pure speculation. You want to believe that someone is screwing you over for a couple of bucks, so you will wantonly endanger hundreds of other people on a public flight because you refuse to believe that your phone could cause interference???
I don't give a RA about your doubts. Look up the facts. Do some research. Ask an expert. Hell, there are plenty of *informed* people who have posted to this very article with evidence that cell phones can indeed cause interference with navigation eq.
WiFi is more dangerous *in your opinion*? What the hell do you know about it? What are your sources? Why should anyone care about your opinion?
Ignorant people like you make me feel ill.
Ok, here are some answers:
Question 1) Because it's annoying
Question 2) No
Question 3) Yes, but only for conversations in which only one side is heard
As for *why* public cell use is annoying, it doesn't matter what the medium is, if we can only hear one side of the conversation, it interrupts and puts more demands on our attention (ever been annoyed by the guy in the next cubicle talking loudly on the phone? - I say loudly in this context becdause cubes are built to muffle noise so you won't generally hear normal conversation).
Our brains are trained to know what a turn-taking conversation is and so can tune it out. However, if you can only hear one side of a conversation, it's like constantly telling your brain to start paying attention because there's a new conversation starting up!
Check out this link for relevant research:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040412.html/
So, in conclusion, talking on a cell in public is just plain rude. Unless you deliberately want to be a jackass, go somewhere private to have your conversation, don't disturb everyone else.
Heh... it says that the NRC is a "technical co-sponsor" of the WMSCI 2005 on their web page, however, I can't seem to find ANY mention of WMSCI 2005 on NRC's website.
Why do you suppose that is I wonder?