It was the Frisbie Pie company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisbie_Pie_Company. The original name was the "Pluto Platter", but kids called them "Frisbies" because of the famous pies. So they changed the spelling to "Frisbee".
If you press your closed eye with your finger and see a light, you haven't explained light. That requires physics. Or if you stimulate the correct part of your brain and experience a salty taste in your mouth, you haven't explained salt. That requires chemistry. So how can you say:
But it does explain spirituality. It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is.
These experiments do little or nothing to explain the object of our senses. They do however explain the biology which allows us to experience them.
The valuable part of a wiki IMHO, is that the consensus, or at least the representative views, generally float to the top. All the history is there for the curious, but it's mostly archival. If waves allow consensus, conclusions, structure, and action items to "float to the top", and typos, mis-statements, and rejected viewpoints to sink, then I see much hope in Google Wave. I realize some kind of editing, possibly with the aid of plugins, is required to achieve this goal, but the point is how easily the final "document" can be extracted from the wave process.
The ability to "post-process" a wave to (easily) extract a finished document with form, conclusions, action item lists, (ie all the things you might expect from meeting minutes and more), would add incredible value to a wave as a long-term document.
If Google Wave has a feature that would easily allow structure, conclusions, highlights, etc to be effected onto a wave after it's (essentially) done, then perhaps we have a winner. This post-processing could add value to a wave as a document.
I was hoping that Google Wave would be more like a super-wiki than a multi-media chat room. Wiki's allow anyone to contribute their knowledge in a structured, peer-reviewed way that (generally) promotes structure (including proper spelling and grammar) and, if not consensus, at least a fair representation of predominant viewpoints. I get the feeling that wiki contributions are fully formed thought structures. I like wikis.
Chat rooms encourage fast-typing and snappy comebacks. I don't think that careful consideration is the point of chat. So although I see the real-time collaborative potential, I am not a fan. What I like about email is that I can answer it in my own time, the sender doesn't usually expect an immediate reply.
Maybe I don't get it. But then again I don't really get twitter either.
My father is a WWII vet who raised a family of 10 on a modest salary by being hard-nosed, no-nonsense, practical realist. So one day (when I was a kid), he's blowing his top because SOMEONE was messing in his dresser drawer! His box of cards was opened, and a prayer card that he had saved since he was a kid was standing up on top. The prayer card was from a wake for a childhood friend who had killed himself as a kid. My father kept in touch with the family through the annual Christmas card exchange. Nobody fessed up to rifleing through his drawer (a capital offense). Then later that same evening he gets a call from the family with the bad news that the childhood friend's father (same name) had passed the night before. Please explain that.
Print flyers with the words "see some nasty child porn; turn me over" on both sides. Then scatter them around town: around city hall, churches, boy scout clubhouses, wherever perverts hang out. When they bend over and turn over the paper...
THEY'RE BUSTED, HA HA!
Slap the cuffs on their sorry ass, get them registered, confiscate their stuff, and lock em' up!
That's Feynman, not Einstein <headfullofphysics author="Richard Feynman"> One cannot understand... the universality of the laws of nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematics. There is no other way to do it. </headfullof physics>
A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. </headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Albert Einstein"> One cannot understand... the universality of the laws of nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematics. There is no other way to do it. </headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Sir James Jeans"> The final truth about a phenomenon resides in the mathematical description of it; so long as there is no imperfection in this, our knowledge of the phenomenon is complete. We go beyond mathematical formulas at our own risk; we may find a model or a picture which helps us understand it, but we have no right to expect this, and our failure to find such a model or picture need not indicate that either our reasoning or our knowledge is at fault. The making of models or pictures to explain mathematical formulas and the phenomena they describe is not a step towards, but a step away from, reality; it is like making a graven imgage of a spirit. </headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Max Jammer"> The fact that all past futures have resembled past pasts does not quarantee that all future futures will resemble future pasts. </headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Schrodinger"> You surely must understand, Bohr, that the whole idea of quantum jumps necessarily leads to nonsense... If we are going to have to put up with these damn quantum jumps, I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory. </headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands"> Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone - both to the novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not understand it the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not, because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn bout them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience...We would like to emphasize a very important difference between classical and quantum mechanics. We have been talking about the probability that an electron will arrive in a given circumstance. We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible - that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it... So at the present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is something that will be with us forever - that it is impossible to beat that puzzle - that this is the way nature really is. </headfullof physics>
In my experience, a major obstacle to a proper "relationship" to fundamental physics is the idea that somehow it can be understood in a visual or sensory way. Mathematics can model things that just don't make any sense. Our sensory organs are not equipped to experience fundamental reality. Possibly after studying mathematics long enough, the brain grows a sensitivity to the math. But trying to visualize this stuff is ultimately an exercise in frustration. What happens is that you risk taking that flawed visual model seriously, and trying to extrapolate. Which gets in the way of learning the math necessary to solve the problems.
Imap can replace web access well enough (e.g. for laptop on the road). But I download multiple gmail accounts from my desktop computer via pop. I don't see how imap could work with multiple accounts. Any ideas?
"Spaces" is the only gotta-have feature for me, also. I've been hanging on to 10.39, was planning on buying a used 10.4 license after 10.5 came out. But the multiple workspaces feature will pay for itself in increased productivity, so it's straight to Leopard for me.
Slashdot Mirror
It was the Frisbie Pie company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisbie_Pie_Company. The original name was the "Pluto Platter", but kids called them "Frisbies" because of the famous pies. So they changed the spelling to "Frisbee".
Mahatma Ghandi, Jesus, George Washington: they could have saved a lot of wear and tear on their knees by drinking gin.
If you press your closed eye with your finger and see a light, you haven't explained light. That requires physics. Or if you stimulate the correct part of your brain and experience a salty taste in your mouth, you haven't explained salt. That requires chemistry. So how can you say:
But it does explain spirituality. It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is.
These experiments do little or nothing to explain the object of our senses. They do however explain the biology which allows us to experience them.
David Bohm's theory of the implicate order is (for me) the most satisfying explanation of the apparent absurdity in quantum entanglement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm#Quantum_entanglement
http://www.david-bohm.net/
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm
The Chinese government requires every Slashdot subscriber to send an official letter of apology, and promise never to read Slashdot again.
Wave is literally a Wiki-IM hybrid.
The valuable part of a wiki IMHO, is that the consensus, or at least the representative views, generally float to the top. All the history is there for the curious, but it's mostly archival. If waves allow consensus, conclusions, structure, and action items to "float to the top", and typos, mis-statements, and rejected viewpoints to sink, then I see much hope in Google Wave. I realize some kind of editing, possibly with the aid of plugins, is required to achieve this goal, but the point is how easily the final "document" can be extracted from the wave process.
The ability to "post-process" a wave to (easily) extract a finished document with form, conclusions, action item lists, (ie all the things you might expect from meeting minutes and more), would add incredible value to a wave as a long-term document.
If Google Wave has a feature that would easily allow structure, conclusions, highlights, etc to be effected onto a wave after it's (essentially) done, then perhaps we have a winner. This post-processing could add value to a wave as a document.
I was hoping that Google Wave would be more like a super-wiki than a multi-media chat room. Wiki's allow anyone to contribute their knowledge in a structured, peer-reviewed way that (generally) promotes structure (including proper spelling and grammar) and, if not consensus, at least a fair representation of predominant viewpoints. I get the feeling that wiki contributions are fully formed thought structures. I like wikis.
Chat rooms encourage fast-typing and snappy comebacks. I don't think that careful consideration is the point of chat. So although I see the real-time collaborative potential, I am not a fan. What I like about email is that I can answer it in my own time, the sender doesn't usually expect an immediate reply.
Maybe I don't get it. But then again I don't really get twitter either.
My father is a WWII vet who raised a family of 10 on a modest salary by being hard-nosed, no-nonsense, practical realist. So one day (when I was a kid), he's blowing his top because SOMEONE was messing in his dresser drawer! His box of cards was opened, and a prayer card that he had saved since he was a kid was standing up on top. The prayer card was from a wake for a childhood friend who had killed himself as a kid. My father kept in touch with the family through the annual Christmas card exchange. Nobody fessed up to rifleing through his drawer (a capital offense). Then later that same evening he gets a call from the family with the bad news that the childhood friend's father (same name) had passed the night before. Please explain that.
Forget France and Sarkozy, Google streetview needs to worry about running into the Overreaction Guy in San Francisco.
Print flyers with the words "see some nasty child porn; turn me over" on both sides. Then scatter them around town: around city hall, churches, boy scout clubhouses, wherever perverts hang out. When they bend over and turn over the paper...
THEY'RE BUSTED, HA HA!
Slap the cuffs on their sorry ass, get them registered, confiscate their stuff, and lock em' up!
And of course, PROFIT!
Eleven months early!
A weak dollar means more foreigners buying up land and housing. That could drive up home prices.
That's Feynman, not Einstein ... the universality of the laws of nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematics. There is no other way to do it.
<headfullofphysics author="Richard Feynman">
One cannot understand
</headfullof physics>
A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
</headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Albert Einstein">
One cannot understand
</headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Sir James Jeans">
The final truth about a phenomenon resides in the mathematical description of it; so long as there is no imperfection in this, our knowledge of the phenomenon is complete. We go beyond mathematical formulas at our own risk; we may find a model or a picture which helps us understand it, but we have no right to expect this, and our failure to find such a model or picture need not indicate that either our reasoning or our knowledge is at fault. The making of models or pictures to explain mathematical formulas and the phenomena they describe is not a step towards, but a step away from, reality; it is like making a graven imgage of a spirit.
</headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Max Jammer">
The fact that all past futures have resembled past pasts does not quarantee that all future futures will resemble future pasts.
</headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Schrodinger">
You surely must understand, Bohr, that the whole idea of quantum jumps necessarily leads to nonsense... If we are going to have to put up with these damn quantum jumps, I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory.
</headfullof physics>
<headfullofphysics author="Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands">
Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone - both to the novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not understand it the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not, because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn bout them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience...We would like to emphasize a very important difference between classical and quantum mechanics. We have been talking about the probability that an electron will arrive in a given circumstance. We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible - that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it... So at the present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is something that will be with us forever - that it is impossible to beat that puzzle - that this is the way nature really is.
</headfullof physics>
I suspect that the language of mathematics will ultimately fall short in modeling reality. My hunch is that the Universe has properties that flow (uniquely) from its "wholeness". Science, language, and mathematics depend on chopping reality up in bits, describing things by distinction. David Bohm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm/ develops this interpretation very clearly in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" http://www.amazon.com/Wholeness-Implicate-Order-Routledge-Classics/dp/other-editions/0415289793/ref=dp_ed_all/ .
In my experience, a major obstacle to a proper "relationship" to fundamental physics is the idea that somehow it can be understood in a visual or sensory way. Mathematics can model things that just don't make any sense. Our sensory organs are not equipped to experience fundamental reality. Possibly after studying mathematics long enough, the brain grows a sensitivity to the math. But trying to visualize this stuff is ultimately an exercise in frustration. What happens is that you risk taking that flawed visual model seriously, and trying to extrapolate. Which gets in the way of learning the math necessary to solve the problems.
Dr. John is way cool, but methinks you got the wrong home page. http://www.drjohn.org/
Thanks, I set up Thunderbird with imap, but the clever sob's at Google have enabled imap on only one of my accounts (so far).
Under "Server" => "Advanced" you can specify namespaces (personal and/or public) and "other users".
Imap can replace web access well enough (e.g. for laptop on the road). But I download multiple gmail accounts from my desktop computer via pop. I don't see how imap could work with multiple accounts. Any ideas?
So either Apple is speeding up, or the others are slowing down. Which is it?
"Spaces" is the only gotta-have feature for me, also. I've been hanging on to 10.39, was planning on buying a used 10.4 license after 10.5 came out. But the multiple workspaces feature will pay for itself in increased productivity, so it's straight to Leopard for me.
Catalyst, Baby!
http://dev.catalystframework.org/