"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
-- one of Robert A. Heinlein's characters in the short story Life-Line, 1939
They don't need to code. They need an IT department that doesn't have its head in its ass and is supplied with enough resources to be able to afford solving user problems like that.
Yes... but the other piece of the puzzle is that the user has to be computer-savvy enough to know, or at least suspect, that there is a better way to accomplish a task. Users who have very narrow IT training may think there is only one way to do a task, and may not bother to ask for help because they don't even know that an alternative exists. Only people with slightly broader training will even be aware that there are things like scripts that can automate tedious processes.
Scientists are not so naive as to simply think "it is expanding now, therefore it has always been expanding." The main reasons why we think there was a big bang are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence):
1) The universe is not just expanding, it's expanding in such a way that the relationship between distance and speed matches up neatly along smooth curves.
2) We can see (in microwave telescopes) the cosmic background radiation just where it should be, at just the frequency that was predicted if there had been a big bang (note the prediction was made in 1948, but the microwaves were not measured until 1965).
3) We can see gas clouds in the far distance (12 billion light years), which we see as they appeared 12 billion years ago, which are made of hydrogen and helium in the proportions that we expect would have been made in the big bang, and without the heavier elements that we think would not have been made in a big bang, and there is no other theory that has been able to explain the proportions of the light elements.
4) The way galaxies and quasars are distributed and the way they appear to have developed over time matches what we think would have happened if there had been a big bang (and rules out other ideas such as a steady-state universe).
You also asked:
You suggest we should be believers in this everything from nothing theory without the least bit of skepticism?
No scientist would suggest that you believe any theory without skepticism. Certainly, be skeptical! But skepticism is not the same as refusing to accept an idea just because it sounds far-fetched. If someone does come up with a better theory (where "better" = "makes predictions that match what we actually observe more closely and more efficiently than other theories"), then by all means, out with the old theory and in with the new. And it's certainly fine to attempt to poke holes in the current theory -- indeed, there is surely a Nobel Prize waiting for the person who proves that there was no big bang! But poking holes in the theory has to be done by either finding out that the theory contains contradictions, or finding that it fails to explain something that we can see happens in reality. One doesn't get the Nobel Prize for saying "that doesn't sound right."
Being precise about terminology can help a discussion, especially when words have specific legal definitions. A major problem with immigration discussions is that people use terms incorrectly and don't make important distinctions. People don't understand the differences between asylum seekers, refugees, the many different kinds of work visa holders, and so on, and they don't understand the criteria for entry or the entitlements for each category, so they form opinions based on misinformation.
Grading is not, or should not be, about the grade, it should be about the feedback that the lecturer gives to the student. Even if the computer can grade an essay well (which I remain to be convinced of, although I am sure I will soon have the chance to test it for myself), there is no claim made about the computer giving useful advice to the student. Can a computer explain how to refine a research question or structure an argument? Sadly, many lecturers don't in fact give good feedback, but we should be looking for ways to enable lecturers to give better feedback, not accepting poor feedback as the norm.
there are very few observable physical phenomena that we cannot currently explain.
95% of the universe is made up of "dark" matter and "dark" energy -- we don't know what they are, but we know there must be something there because we can see gravitational influence on "real" matter and energy. It would surprise me if that 95% region of the universe were perfectly uniform, featureless, and uninteresting. Once we figure out how to observe it, we may find quite a few more phenomena worth exploring!
For most of biology, we haven't yet been able to create numerical models. There are a huge number of variables, interactions, and feedback loops, and frankly we don't even fully understand how many biological processes work, so creating mathematical models is very difficult. But this is sure to be a productive area of research so any young computer geeks with an appetite for the squishy science should take note!
Why do we still put a mandate of "liquid water" in the hospitable zone requirement?
It's not a "mandate", but it's a way of identifying the first and most likely places to look, for two reasons:
1) Water is necessary for "life as we know it", and we have a good idea of some indicators of life-as-we-know-it that we could observe at a great distance. We have no clue how to recognise life-as-we-DON'T-know-it from a great distance, we just don't know what to look for.
2) There is actually good reason to think that there is a high probability that alien life might be based on the same chemistry as life on Earth. Life on Earth is mostly made of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, which are also three of the four most common elements in the whole universe -- the fourth being helium, which doesn't react with anything so doesn't make any interesting chemistry. And out of all of the elements on the periodic table, carbon forms more compounds than all of the other elements combined. So our biology is based on the most common and most readily-combining elements in the universe, which suggests that we are unlikely to be unique.
There is no such thing as "accent-free". We all speak with an accent, the accent of the place where we learned our language. You may think your way of speaking is "normal" and everyone else's as "different", but you are not the center of the linguistic universe; it is all relative. People from other places can hear your accent and can probably tell where you grew up by listening to you.
I suspect that discrimination on the basis of accent would probably violate the civil rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely and work in any state in the USA. You can't discriminate against someone just because they sound like they are from Boston, Brooklyn, or Charleston.
Neil deGrasse Tyson makes some interesting points in relation to this: (1) The five most common elements in the solar system are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. (2) Of all the elements, the one that makes the most compounds is carbon -- there are more compounds containing carbon than all other compounds of all of the other elements combined. (3) Life on Earth is made mostly of H, O, C, N, plus some trace elements, and is based on C. ("Organic chemistry" means the chemistry of carbon compounds.)
In other words, we are made out of the most common available materials (discounting helium which doesn't react with anything so doesn't produce interesting chemistry), including the element that produces the most complex and varied chemistry. So if you are looking for complex chemistry (i.e. life) elsewhere in the galaxy, it actually does seem to be a reasonable starting point to expect that it is fairly likely to also be based on the most common elements available, and on the element that produces the most complex and diverse chemistry.
Do we expect to send colonists on a one-way trip that takes most of their lifetime?
Why not? In human history, people have set out on one-way trips countless times. European colonists coming to the Americas never expected to return. Colonists heading west across the Great Plains of the USA never expected to return. People are absolutely willing to uproot themselves and head out on daring expeditions with uncertain results and no expectation of return.
And don't forget another effect: a spaceship launched later, but developed with better technology, can overtake a spaceship that flew earlier and slower. It would be pretty sad for a crew of an earlier ship to arrive and find a colony that is established by humans decades ago.
But you have to build that first spaceship anyway, because if you don't, then you never develop the technology to build the second, faster one. The Wright brothers' first airplane only flew 852 feet, which is pretty lame compared with what we have now, but they had to build that one so that they could figure out how to build Flyer II and then III, and so on until we have Airbuses. But you cannot jump directly to building an Airbus without first building the Wright Flyer.
Not quite the first thing you put in your constitution, actually; I think you are probably referring to the first amendment to your constitution, i.e. the first thing you changed in it.
You know what, in the UK for about 20 years the Liberal Democrats were a joke party.
They were a non-joke for a brief period this year during the campaign, from the first television debate until election day. Now that they have gotten into bed with the Tories and abandoned all of their pledges and principles for a taste of power, they are once again a joke.
Only a small proportion of market participants (about 2%) are "high-frequency traders" but they account for 60 to 70% of the transactions, according to a very interesting NPR podcast that I just listened to: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/06/08/127563433/the-tuesday-podcast-the-million-dollar-microsecond. Also according to that podcast, real-life long-term institutional investors actually hate the high-frequency traders. The investors say the high-frequency traders don't bring any value to the marketplace, and in fact make life more expensive for investors because when large investors make a series of transactions (they make big trades in several parts, not all at once), the traders see this and make trades between the investors' trades, driving prices further in the unfavourable direction (up or down, depending on the transaction).
"well, I can't give legal advice, so I can't help you find the form you're looking for." That's just ridiculous. Help the customer.
Unfortunately, at some point in the distant past, some customer got helped, received the wrong form, and suffered some delay or inconvenience because of that. Because that customer was a litigious, spiteful, vindictive asshole who likes blaming others, he found a hungry lawyer willing to take the case on contingency, sued the person who gave him the form, and won on the grounds that the form-hander-outer was not qualified to provide legal advice. And for that reason, form-hander-outers cannot comment on the appropriateness of the forms they hand out. Presumably the same thinking is behind the law in the UK that threatens to make criminals out of people who suggest to their friends that putting money into an ISA (like a 401(k) in the USA) is a good idea.
Sane drivers know this, reduce their speed, and then -- making wild hand-waving guesses, here -- wind up with about the same overall level of "dangerousness" as when driving on uncluttered roadways.
No, what these people are arguing is that sane drivers know this, reduce their speed, and then, according to actual statistics* instead of hand-waving gestures, wind up with about half the level overall level of dangerousness.
* "actual statistics" = number of dead Dutch drivers
No, it's only recognised to the extent that enough people wrote in "Jedi" on the last census that the Office for National Statistics assigned a code number for data entry purposes, and calculated a total for them instead of just lumping them in with "other". There are only seven options for religion on the census form: None, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, and "other, please write in".
The Office for National Statistics is not recognising religions, it's just reporting what people wrote in as their answer to the question, "what is your religion?" Other answers which have equal status include Secularism, Satanism, Heathen, Divine Light Mission, Rationalist, Own Belief System, Free Church of Love, and Church of All Religion.
Same in Norway. And you use your mobile phone to send a text message to state that you confirm/agree that the data sent to you are correct. If you want to make changes to the government's tax assessment, then you have to fill out paperwork of course.
Slashdot Mirror
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
-- one of Robert A. Heinlein's characters in the short story Life-Line, 1939
They don't need to code. They need an IT department that doesn't have its head in its ass and is supplied with enough resources to be able to afford solving user problems like that.
Yes... but the other piece of the puzzle is that the user has to be computer-savvy enough to know, or at least suspect, that there is a better way to accomplish a task. Users who have very narrow IT training may think there is only one way to do a task, and may not bother to ask for help because they don't even know that an alternative exists. Only people with slightly broader training will even be aware that there are things like scripts that can automate tedious processes.
Scientists are not so naive as to simply think "it is expanding now, therefore it has always been expanding." The main reasons why we think there was a big bang are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence):
1) The universe is not just expanding, it's expanding in such a way that the relationship between distance and speed matches up neatly along smooth curves.
2) We can see (in microwave telescopes) the cosmic background radiation just where it should be, at just the frequency that was predicted if there had been a big bang (note the prediction was made in 1948, but the microwaves were not measured until 1965).
3) We can see gas clouds in the far distance (12 billion light years), which we see as they appeared 12 billion years ago, which are made of hydrogen and helium in the proportions that we expect would have been made in the big bang, and without the heavier elements that we think would not have been made in a big bang, and there is no other theory that has been able to explain the proportions of the light elements.
4) The way galaxies and quasars are distributed and the way they appear to have developed over time matches what we think would have happened if there had been a big bang (and rules out other ideas such as a steady-state universe).
You also asked:
You suggest we should be believers in this everything from nothing theory without the least bit of skepticism?
No scientist would suggest that you believe any theory without skepticism. Certainly, be skeptical! But skepticism is not the same as refusing to accept an idea just because it sounds far-fetched. If someone does come up with a better theory (where "better" = "makes predictions that match what we actually observe more closely and more efficiently than other theories"), then by all means, out with the old theory and in with the new. And it's certainly fine to attempt to poke holes in the current theory -- indeed, there is surely a Nobel Prize waiting for the person who proves that there was no big bang! But poking holes in the theory has to be done by either finding out that the theory contains contradictions, or finding that it fails to explain something that we can see happens in reality. One doesn't get the Nobel Prize for saying "that doesn't sound right."
Being precise about terminology can help a discussion, especially when words have specific legal definitions. A major problem with immigration discussions is that people use terms incorrectly and don't make important distinctions. People don't understand the differences between asylum seekers, refugees, the many different kinds of work visa holders, and so on, and they don't understand the criteria for entry or the entitlements for each category, so they form opinions based on misinformation.
Grading is not, or should not be, about the grade, it should be about the feedback that the lecturer gives to the student. Even if the computer can grade an essay well (which I remain to be convinced of, although I am sure I will soon have the chance to test it for myself), there is no claim made about the computer giving useful advice to the student. Can a computer explain how to refine a research question or structure an argument? Sadly, many lecturers don't in fact give good feedback, but we should be looking for ways to enable lecturers to give better feedback, not accepting poor feedback as the norm.
With Russia embracing democracy, more or less
I'm going with "less"
there are very few observable physical phenomena that we cannot currently explain.
95% of the universe is made up of "dark" matter and "dark" energy -- we don't know what they are, but we know there must be something there because we can see gravitational influence on "real" matter and energy. It would surprise me if that 95% region of the universe were perfectly uniform, featureless, and uninteresting. Once we figure out how to observe it, we may find quite a few more phenomena worth exploring!
For most of biology, we haven't yet been able to create numerical models. There are a huge number of variables, interactions, and feedback loops, and frankly we don't even fully understand how many biological processes work, so creating mathematical models is very difficult. But this is sure to be a productive area of research so any young computer geeks with an appetite for the squishy science should take note!
The protesters are not the problem. The protesters are the symptom. Fighting the symptom doesn't solve the problem.
This. This this this this this. This!
Why do we still put a mandate of "liquid water" in the hospitable zone requirement?
It's not a "mandate", but it's a way of identifying the first and most likely places to look, for two reasons:
1) Water is necessary for "life as we know it", and we have a good idea of some indicators of life-as-we-know-it that we could observe at a great distance. We have no clue how to recognise life-as-we-DON'T-know-it from a great distance, we just don't know what to look for.
2) There is actually good reason to think that there is a high probability that alien life might be based on the same chemistry as life on Earth. Life on Earth is mostly made of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, which are also three of the four most common elements in the whole universe -- the fourth being helium, which doesn't react with anything so doesn't make any interesting chemistry. And out of all of the elements on the periodic table, carbon forms more compounds than all of the other elements combined. So our biology is based on the most common and most readily-combining elements in the universe, which suggests that we are unlikely to be unique.
There is no such thing as "accent-free". We all speak with an accent, the accent of the place where we learned our language. You may think your way of speaking is "normal" and everyone else's as "different", but you are not the center of the linguistic universe; it is all relative. People from other places can hear your accent and can probably tell where you grew up by listening to you.
I suspect that discrimination on the basis of accent would probably violate the civil rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely and work in any state in the USA. You can't discriminate against someone just because they sound like they are from Boston, Brooklyn, or Charleston.
Neil deGrasse Tyson makes some interesting points in relation to this: (1) The five most common elements in the solar system are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. (2) Of all the elements, the one that makes the most compounds is carbon -- there are more compounds containing carbon than all other compounds of all of the other elements combined. (3) Life on Earth is made mostly of H, O, C, N, plus some trace elements, and is based on C. ("Organic chemistry" means the chemistry of carbon compounds.)
In other words, we are made out of the most common available materials (discounting helium which doesn't react with anything so doesn't produce interesting chemistry), including the element that produces the most complex and varied chemistry. So if you are looking for complex chemistry (i.e. life) elsewhere in the galaxy, it actually does seem to be a reasonable starting point to expect that it is fairly likely to also be based on the most common elements available, and on the element that produces the most complex and diverse chemistry.
Do we expect to send colonists on a one-way trip that takes most of their lifetime?
Why not? In human history, people have set out on one-way trips countless times. European colonists coming to the Americas never expected to return. Colonists heading west across the Great Plains of the USA never expected to return. People are absolutely willing to uproot themselves and head out on daring expeditions with uncertain results and no expectation of return.
And don't forget another effect: a spaceship launched later, but developed with better technology, can overtake a spaceship that flew earlier and slower. It would be pretty sad for a crew of an earlier ship to arrive and find a colony that is established by humans decades ago.
But you have to build that first spaceship anyway, because if you don't, then you never develop the technology to build the second, faster one. The Wright brothers' first airplane only flew 852 feet, which is pretty lame compared with what we have now, but they had to build that one so that they could figure out how to build Flyer II and then III, and so on until we have Airbuses. But you cannot jump directly to building an Airbus without first building the Wright Flyer.
Must I rely on Google searchs and Wikipedia for all my answers?
Safer to rely on Google and Wikipedia for all of your answers than to rely on Slashdot for any of them!
Not quite the first thing you put in your constitution, actually; I think you are probably referring to the first amendment to your constitution, i.e. the first thing you changed in it.
You know what, in the UK for about 20 years the Liberal Democrats were a joke party.
They were a non-joke for a brief period this year during the campaign, from the first television debate until election day. Now that they have gotten into bed with the Tories and abandoned all of their pledges and principles for a taste of power, they are once again a joke.
Everything takes longer and costs more than you think, even when you take into account the fact that it will take longer and cost more than you think.
640k and 32 bits *were* wayyyy overboard. But exponential growth will make fools of us all.
Sorry, I have to disagree. It is NOT good to see that it's not only cops in the US that are douches.
Yeah, but you can usually extend it if you shake the cartridge.
Only a small proportion of market participants (about 2%) are "high-frequency traders" but they account for 60 to 70% of the transactions, according to a very interesting NPR podcast that I just listened to: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/06/08/127563433/the-tuesday-podcast-the-million-dollar-microsecond. Also according to that podcast, real-life long-term institutional investors actually hate the high-frequency traders. The investors say the high-frequency traders don't bring any value to the marketplace, and in fact make life more expensive for investors because when large investors make a series of transactions (they make big trades in several parts, not all at once), the traders see this and make trades between the investors' trades, driving prices further in the unfavourable direction (up or down, depending on the transaction).
"well, I can't give legal advice, so I can't help you find the form you're looking for." That's just ridiculous. Help the customer.
Unfortunately, at some point in the distant past, some customer got helped, received the wrong form, and suffered some delay or inconvenience because of that. Because that customer was a litigious, spiteful, vindictive asshole who likes blaming others, he found a hungry lawyer willing to take the case on contingency, sued the person who gave him the form, and won on the grounds that the form-hander-outer was not qualified to provide legal advice. And for that reason, form-hander-outers cannot comment on the appropriateness of the forms they hand out. Presumably the same thinking is behind the law in the UK that threatens to make criminals out of people who suggest to their friends that putting money into an ISA (like a 401(k) in the USA) is a good idea.
No, what these people are arguing is that sane drivers know this, reduce their speed, and then, according to actual statistics* instead of hand-waving gestures, wind up with about half the level overall level of dangerousness.
* "actual statistics" = number of dead Dutch drivers
No, it's only recognised to the extent that enough people wrote in "Jedi" on the last census that the Office for National Statistics assigned a code number for data entry purposes, and calculated a total for them instead of just lumping them in with "other". There are only seven options for religion on the census form: None, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, and "other, please write in".
The Office for National Statistics is not recognising religions, it's just reporting what people wrote in as their answer to the question, "what is your religion?" Other answers which have equal status include Secularism, Satanism, Heathen, Divine Light Mission, Rationalist, Own Belief System, Free Church of Love, and Church of All Religion.
It's not intended to copy Windows, it just looks like Windows the same way Gnome and KDE both resemble Windows. http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-03-01/north-korea-cyber-weapon.html?fullstory
Same in Norway. And you use your mobile phone to send a text message to state that you confirm/agree that the data sent to you are correct. If you want to make changes to the government's tax assessment, then you have to fill out paperwork of course.