Where'd you get that information from? Everything that I've encountered about Aqua places it as vector based. If it's not, how did they accomplish the realtime distortions of video when minimizing windows?
Some support for pdf? It's completely based on pdf. That's why it's vector-based and why it's so evolutoniary.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Perhaps you missed the fact that Berlin is a Vector-based GUI. You know, like Aqua? I don't think there are any other GUI's out there with that capability(besides proprietary Apple one of course) and you certainly won't find any vector-based rendering extensions for X.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
As many others pointed out, Goedel already proved that many true relations are unprovable. Chaitin is saying that many mathematical concepts are completely separate and that mathematics as a whole is riddled with holes.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
But mathematics is abstract. Even if true randomness were theortically impossible, such constraints would be irrelevant in a mathematically hypothetical situation. Such a situation may not occur in real life, but when did thought experiments necessarily have anything to do with real life? We are still being hypothetical here right?
And like I said, for all intents and purposes, the chaotic elements of the universe may be enough randomness. If you had all the positions and energies of all the atoms in a radioactive sample, you just might be able to precisely calculate the samples' decay. Then again, maybe not. Since there will never be a way to model a chaotic system accurately, IMO you could consider it random. Is decay chaotic or random? Quantum Physics states that you can't know the both the energy and the position of a particle with absolute precision, so if it were chaotic, it would still be impossible to obtain the initial conditions of the system. Is that enough of a case for randomness? I'm not sure, but QM is based on mathematics, so I'll stick to math for now.
Perhaps you were saying that if the programs generated were not truly random, then somewhere along the line there would emerge a pattern in his equations demonstrating a structure thereby disproving his theory. But I guess this comes down to real situations versus mathematical constructs. Flights of fancy can create anything, so if mathematics as it currently stands allows for such constructs Chaitin has simply taken the process through to its conclusion and reported the results. At this point we can say a few things (given his proof is logically correct): if these reults don't make sense, then a) there is a flaw with math, or b) some of the axioms/assumptions he made/used were false.
If true randomness is real, then it leads to these kinds of results, and math is truly random. He just proved it and I don't think you're disputing that. If true randomness is not a valid concept in and of itself(and this proof breaks apart because of it) then there are some serious problems with alot of other math and science out there, wouldn't you say? So either way, Chaitin has brought something very significant to our attention, something that needs to be addressed. This is a complex issue and could turn out to be very interesting... for everyone.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I think the point of this issue is to shift the control and focus of software development from the managers(who try and push things through as fast as possible) to the developers(who want to write good software that works). When you make companies accountable like this, I'm sure we'd see this kind of change because the managers would get in crap everytime there was a problem with software from their department. At the least they'd certainly listen to their programmers more instead of forcing their own deadlines. If the developers get more control because the company would get in big shit for writing crappy software, then that equates to a MUCH better software, and much happier users(me being among those).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I wouldn't buy shittier software to save some money, and I'm reasonably sure that most companies would want something that works 100% of the time, and be recompensed everytime it doesn't.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
No, the body ends in a semicolon. Commas indicate you can execute multiple statements as if they were one big statement. From "The C Programming Language", 2nd edition:
Comma operators should be used sparingly. The most suitable uses are for constructs strongly related to each other, as in the for loop in 'reverse', and in macros where a multistep omputation has to be single expression...
for (i=0,j=strlen(s)-1; i<j; i++,j++)
c=s[i], s[i]=s[j], s[j]=c;
The statements sperated by commas in the for loop are all contained within the for loop, and the whole statement is terminated by the ';'. That for loop could also be written(as it is in the code that was linked to above):
for (i=0,j=strlen(s)-1; i<j; i++,j++)
c=s[i],
s[i]=s[j],
s[j]=c;
since the C compiler ignores all whitespace.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Your friend's theory of "everything" does suck if he also believes that somethings (anything at all) can be truly random
I'm taking this to mean that if there was a single equation dsecribing all of existence, then you're saying that there would be no such thing as true randomness. In principle you'd be right, but I believe the universe is not a random system but a chaotic system(in the physics sense). So given that we cannot know the initial conditions of the universe, many things would appear quite random, and for all intents and purposes, would be. So true randomness is theoretically impossible(given the unified equation), but chaos is good enough.;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So? What's your point? His post is still informative and useful to the people on Slashdot who run Linux. If you don't, big whoop, I couldn't care less. Ignore the post and move on. Perhaps your new motto should be: Some Slashdot Readers Are Linux Users. Consequently, they like talking about it. If you don't, then don't join in.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The MPAA and the companies writing DVD software should freaking HIRE the people hacking on DeCSS. FerChrists sake, this implementation is less than 0.5k, is the goddamn fastest DeCSS decoding algorithm in existence, and is not even fully optimized yet(according to the above mentioned DeCSS gallery). If they were smart, they'd be hiring these guys, not suing them.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The point is if you're running a server app, the amount of time to start to program is insignificant compared to the amount of time the program will be running. Consequently, the speed once it's started up and going is what's important. So it's not a gimmick. JITC is less significant to the average user who starts up a Java program every once and awhile since the loading and translating overhead is incurred each time.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
But that's just the point. It's not just the therapists saying they can help you; alot of others who have tried it say it helped them. Not to say that popular opinion is informed or intelligent in any way(I'm referring to bleeding and colon cleansing as medical practices less than a hundred years ago). So it's not a case of the corner merchant selling snake oil. It seems completely different to me. I wish I could provide a more thorough explanation, but I'm tired... need sleep...;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
It's not absolutely conclusive, but it is pretty damning; the practitioners showed no obvious signs of an ability that they claim is crucial to their practice
Do most people understand how computers work in order to use them? No. Did we understand how fire works for the first few tens of thousands of years before we figured out the chemistry. Again no. Not understanding the mechanism by which something works does not mean you cannot make use of it. It could very well be the case in this situation.
While the experiment as you describe it may negate my first point, perhaps the second is valid(or perhaps the hundreds of other possible explanations or mechanisms that may have a hand in this process if it is indeed real). I'm not an advocate for therapeutic touch, nor do I necessarily believe in it. I'm just a devil's advocate. >;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Which sheds some light on the general likelihood of the rest of their claims being accurate.
I wouldn't even go that far, because this evidence has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the practice. You cannot draw any such conclusions(though I know why you're tempted to and why most people would). What this practice has going for it is anecdotal evidence. People say it helps them, the therapists have a theory for why it works, but there has been no significant/accepted scientific study in this area(AFAIK). So anecdotal evidence is all they've got.
This situation is very similar to where linux currently stands(to draw a tangential analogy...have I got your attention now?;-). Linux has alot of anecdotal evidence concerning it's stability and performance, yet little hard data to corroborate it. Do you think any less of the linux kernel when some preliminary tests show it doesn't quite perform as well in certain areas as originally thought. I don't think so, since it works beautifully for you(alternately, you can insert whatever other OS you use as none of them have much hard data for performance and stability). This is the identical situation except applied to medicine.
Some very rough and preliminary tests showed that therapeutic touch did not work as they originally thought it did. Big deal, they think and test more and come to a more complete and robust theory. Happens all the time. It's called science, but from what I've heard of this science fair experiment, these results are being used to debunk "quackery". People should learn to think more, react less.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
What was tested were the claims the therapeutic touch practitioners themselves made, namely they CLAIMED they could sense fields even without seeing the person
If that's what they claimed, and that's what the experiment explicitly aimed to disprove, then I hope they took care about my first point(distance issue). Anything claiming to be scientific should be as thorough as is reasonably possible. I know she's just a kid, but like I said in another post, if she's getting published, then I'll rip it to shreds if the experiment has holes in it. (Just as I would rip to shreds anyone who spouts off "theories" without any proof or at least some sound reasoning to back them their claims).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
But not in sciences. Definitely in languages, definitely in teaching, business and law. There are even quite a few in general sciences, but anything in specialized fields is usually painfully devoid of females(in comparison to the males). I'm in Engineering, I know. I'd say the girl to guy ratio is almost 1:2. It's hard to tell since I don't notice anymore. It was a terrible shock when I first started here, oh so long ago...;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
At some point you are going to have to consider the possibility that perhaps none of these therapies are beneficial.
Well, if you were a rational person and especially if you were a scientist, you should never have discounted the possibility in the first place. The whole point of science is objective evaluation and not biased opinion. So on these grounds, I agree with Ted V(the above poster) when he said that Emily's experiment didn't prove anything except that some of the things the therapists were saying weren't valid. Does that mean the therapy as a whole is invalid? Not at all. And if you believe that the whole thing is a quackery on no proof(as the experiment did not attempt to prove any such thing), then perhaps you should reevaluate your approach to these kinds of issues(not speaking to you directly, but to people in genereal). Allow me to quote a previous comment of mine(since it's pertinent to this discussion):
Ms. Rosa did a very good double blind study that did not directly refute the theraputic claims of theraputic touch but rather refuted the underlying claim that practitioners could sense the energy fields of their subjects.
I don't see how she could prove that therapists couldn't feel the energy. If you think about it, electric fields drop off in proportion to the inverse square of the distance. The claim is that an electric field is produced by internal bodily mechanisms and that the therapists could sense it.
AFAIK, theraputic touch happens very close to the surface of the skin, perhaps for this very reason. I don't have any data on how she(Emily) conducted her experiment, but unless the therapists could get close enough to the subject, they might not be able to get in the "feeling range"(ie. the E-field may be too weak at the distances used in the experiment). Of course, the closer the subjects get, the more difficult it would be to maintain a blind test. There's a possible physics explanation for you(which I'm almost sure wasn't taken into account by the experiment).
Yet another explanation would be that the therapists actually have an illusion of feeling created by their own minds. The mechanisms for "sensing" these EM-fields may be ones that everyone has: our eyes. Eyes convert EM waves into brain signals. As you know, some people have a broader range of hearing than the norm so perhaps these therapists can "see" these fields normally beyond our perception(or maybe not beyond normal perception: it may simply be a matter of training).
Since the fields are at different wavelengths than visible light, the brain may not interpret them the same(as visual appearance) and so associate a new "feeling" with the presence of these fields. So in order for a therapist to feel a field, they must have visual contact(or get so close across a thin opaque material that the field can penetrate without knowing whether or not there actually was a person on the other side).
And that's just off the top of my head.:-)
I'm sure that neither of these two possibilities were taken into account. It's very difficult to design an experiment that would satisfy everyone, but to me, anyone claiming to do any kind of science would do more than just a one-sided job like this experiment seemed. Science should be thorough, not biased. I know she's just a kid, but shit, she got published for christ's sake. If you're going to get published, then I'm going to bash you if I think you fscked up(even a little).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Ms. Rosa did a very good double blind study that did not directly refute the theraputic claims of theraputic touch but rather refuted the underlying claim that practitioners could sense the energy fields of their subjects.
I don't see how she could prove that therapists couldn't feel the energy. If you think about it, electric fields drop off in proportion to the inverse square of the distance. The claim is that an electric field is produced by internal bodily mechanisms and that the therapists could sense it.
AFAIK, theraputic touch happens very close to the surface of the skin, perhaps for this very reason. I don't have any data on how she(Emily) conducted her experiment, but unless the therapists could get close enough to the subject, they might not be able to get in the "feeling range"(ie. the E-field may be too weak at the distances used in the experiment). Of course, the closer the subjects get, the more difficult it would be to maintain a blind test. There's a possible physics explanation for you(which I'm almost sure wasn't taken into account by the experiment).
Yet another explanation would be that the therapists actually have an illusion of feeling created by their own minds. The mechanisms for "sensing" these EM-fields may be ones that everyone has: our eyes. Eyes convert EM waves into brain signals. As you know, some people have a broader range of hearing than the norm so perhaps these therapists can "see" these fields normally beyond our perception(or maybe not beyond normal perception: it may simply be a matter of training).
Since the fields are at different wavelengths than visible light, the brain may not interpret them the same(as visual appearance) and so associate a new "feeling" with the presence of these fields. So in order for a therapist to feel a field, they must have visual contact(or get so close across a thin opaque material that the field can penetrate without knowing whether or not there actually was a person on the other side).
And that's just off the top of my head.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
A physicist, a biologist and a mathematician were hanging around outside a building. They watched as one person walked into the building, and the exact same person walk out with someone else a few moments later. The physicist quickly said, "Hm. Our original count must have been mistaken." The biologist said, "The person reproduced!" And the ever helpful mathematician added, "Now, if one more person ENTERS the building, it will be empty again."
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Mojonation allows MUCH more than just file sharing. And the builtin micropayment system is just the beginning from what I've read. They even have the potential to sell cpu cycles to whomever wishes to buy them via micropayments (massive distributed computing ala SETI anyone?). How about remote storage? Everything travelling on the p2p system is encrypted I believe. Other people can store their encrypted files on your hard drive and pay for the used space via the micrpayment system. As 'always-on' high-speed internet access and computers become ubiquitous and more fully integrated with our envirmonment and our lives, these kinds of things will become possible. By that time, we'll need a good infrastructure to handle the needs and possibilities this tech offers, and I think MojoNation is definitely heading in the right direction.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Don't think so? You better tell MojoNation then. They're building a complete online p2p based micrpayment system. Looks very promising. There are a number of other p2p efforts, but most are non-commercial.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Slashdot Mirror
Where'd you get that information from? Everything that I've encountered about Aqua places it as vector based. If it's not, how did they accomplish the realtime distortions of video when minimizing windows?
Some support for pdf? It's completely based on pdf. That's why it's vector-based and why it's so evolutoniary.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Perhaps you missed the fact that Berlin is a Vector-based GUI. You know, like Aqua? I don't think there are any other GUI's out there with that capability(besides proprietary Apple one of course) and you certainly won't find any vector-based rendering extensions for X.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
As many others pointed out, Goedel already proved that many true relations are unprovable. Chaitin is saying that many mathematical concepts are completely separate and that mathematics as a whole is riddled with holes.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
But mathematics is abstract. Even if true randomness were theortically impossible, such constraints would be irrelevant in a mathematically hypothetical situation. Such a situation may not occur in real life, but when did thought experiments necessarily have anything to do with real life? We are still being hypothetical here right?
And like I said, for all intents and purposes, the chaotic elements of the universe may be enough randomness. If you had all the positions and energies of all the atoms in a radioactive sample, you just might be able to precisely calculate the samples' decay. Then again, maybe not. Since there will never be a way to model a chaotic system accurately, IMO you could consider it random. Is decay chaotic or random? Quantum Physics states that you can't know the both the energy and the position of a particle with absolute precision, so if it were chaotic, it would still be impossible to obtain the initial conditions of the system. Is that enough of a case for randomness? I'm not sure, but QM is based on mathematics, so I'll stick to math for now.
Perhaps you were saying that if the programs generated were not truly random, then somewhere along the line there would emerge a pattern in his equations demonstrating a structure thereby disproving his theory. But I guess this comes down to real situations versus mathematical constructs. Flights of fancy can create anything, so if mathematics as it currently stands allows for such constructs Chaitin has simply taken the process through to its conclusion and reported the results. At this point we can say a few things (given his proof is logically correct): if these reults don't make sense, then a) there is a flaw with math, or b) some of the axioms/assumptions he made/used were false.
If true randomness is real, then it leads to these kinds of results, and math is truly random. He just proved it and I don't think you're disputing that. If true randomness is not a valid concept in and of itself(and this proof breaks apart because of it) then there are some serious problems with alot of other math and science out there, wouldn't you say? So either way, Chaitin has brought something very significant to our attention, something that needs to be addressed. This is a complex issue and could turn out to be very interesting... for everyone.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Clearly, you are abnormal and you should stop trying to impose your beliefs on others.
No, no, no. The only thing clear in this situation, is that you are an idiot. Thank you.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Who insist "make it blue"?
lol. [Warning! Explicit Dilbert reference]:
Dilbert: Sure, what colour would you like that server?
Manager: I think mauve has more RAM...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I think the point of this issue is to shift the control and focus of software development from the managers(who try and push things through as fast as possible) to the developers(who want to write good software that works). When you make companies accountable like this, I'm sure we'd see this kind of change because the managers would get in crap everytime there was a problem with software from their department. At the least they'd certainly listen to their programmers more instead of forcing their own deadlines. If the developers get more control because the company would get in big shit for writing crappy software, then that equates to a MUCH better software, and much happier users(me being among those).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I wouldn't buy shittier software to save some money, and I'm reasonably sure that most companies would want something that works 100% of the time, and be recompensed everytime it doesn't.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The statements sperated by commas in the for loop are all contained within the for loop, and the whole statement is terminated by the ';'. That for loop could also be written(as it is in the code that was linked to above):
since the C compiler ignores all whitespace.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Your friend's theory of "everything" does suck if he also believes that somethings (anything at all) can be truly random
;-)
I'm taking this to mean that if there was a single equation dsecribing all of existence, then you're saying that there would be no such thing as true randomness. In principle you'd be right, but I believe the universe is not a random system but a chaotic system(in the physics sense). So given that we cannot know the initial conditions of the universe, many things would appear quite random, and for all intents and purposes, would be. So true randomness is theoretically impossible(given the unified equation), but chaos is good enough.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
It IS unsettling if you consider the fact that every mathematical theorem is potentially "riddled with holes" as Chaitin puts it.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So? What's your point? His post is still informative and useful to the people on Slashdot who run Linux. If you don't, big whoop, I couldn't care less. Ignore the post and move on. Perhaps your new motto should be: Some Slashdot Readers Are Linux Users. Consequently, they like talking about it. If you don't, then don't join in.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The MPAA and the companies writing DVD software should freaking HIRE the people hacking on DeCSS. FerChrists sake, this implementation is less than 0.5k, is the goddamn fastest DeCSS decoding algorithm in existence, and is not even fully optimized yet(according to the above mentioned DeCSS gallery). If they were smart, they'd be hiring these guys, not suing them.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The point is if you're running a server app, the amount of time to start to program is insignificant compared to the amount of time the program will be running. Consequently, the speed once it's started up and going is what's important. So it's not a gimmick. JITC is less significant to the average user who starts up a Java program every once and awhile since the loading and translating overhead is incurred each time.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
But that's just the point. It's not just the therapists saying they can help you; alot of others who have tried it say it helped them. Not to say that popular opinion is informed or intelligent in any way(I'm referring to bleeding and colon cleansing as medical practices less than a hundred years ago). So it's not a case of the corner merchant selling snake oil. It seems completely different to me. I wish I could provide a more thorough explanation, but I'm tired... need sleep... ;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
It's not absolutely conclusive, but it is pretty damning; the practitioners showed no obvious signs of an ability that they claim is crucial to their practice
Do most people understand how computers work in order to use them? No. Did we understand how fire works for the first few tens of thousands of years before we figured out the chemistry. Again no. Not understanding the mechanism by which something works does not mean you cannot make use of it. It could very well be the case in this situation.
While the experiment as you describe it may negate my first point, perhaps the second is valid(or perhaps the hundreds of other possible explanations or mechanisms that may have a hand in this process if it is indeed real). I'm not an advocate for therapeutic touch, nor do I necessarily believe in it. I'm just a devil's advocate. >;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Sorry for the double post...
;-). Linux has alot of anecdotal evidence concerning it's stability and performance, yet little hard data to corroborate it. Do you think any less of the linux kernel when some preliminary tests show it doesn't quite perform as well in certain areas as originally thought. I don't think so, since it works beautifully for you(alternately, you can insert whatever other OS you use as none of them have much hard data for performance and stability). This is the identical situation except applied to medicine.
Which sheds some light on the general likelihood of the rest of their claims being accurate.
I wouldn't even go that far, because this evidence has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the practice. You cannot draw any such conclusions(though I know why you're tempted to and why most people would). What this practice has going for it is anecdotal evidence. People say it helps them, the therapists have a theory for why it works, but there has been no significant/accepted scientific study in this area(AFAIK). So anecdotal evidence is all they've got.
This situation is very similar to where linux currently stands(to draw a tangential analogy...have I got your attention now?
Some very rough and preliminary tests showed that therapeutic touch did not work as they originally thought it did. Big deal, they think and test more and come to a more complete and robust theory. Happens all the time. It's called science, but from what I've heard of this science fair experiment, these results are being used to debunk "quackery". People should learn to think more, react less.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
What was tested were the claims the therapeutic touch practitioners themselves made, namely they CLAIMED they could sense fields even without seeing the person
If that's what they claimed, and that's what the experiment explicitly aimed to disprove, then I hope they took care about my first point(distance issue). Anything claiming to be scientific should be as thorough as is reasonably possible. I know she's just a kid, but like I said in another post, if she's getting published, then I'll rip it to shreds if the experiment has holes in it. (Just as I would rip to shreds anyone who spouts off "theories" without any proof or at least some sound reasoning to back them their claims).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
women now outnumber men in higher education
;-)
But not in sciences. Definitely in languages, definitely in teaching, business and law. There are even quite a few in general sciences, but anything in specialized fields is usually painfully devoid of females(in comparison to the males). I'm in Engineering, I know. I'd say the girl to guy ratio is almost 1:2. It's hard to tell since I don't notice anymore. It was a terrible shock when I first started here, oh so long ago...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Well, if you were a rational person and especially if you were a scientist, you should never have discounted the possibility in the first place. The whole point of science is objective evaluation and not biased opinion. So on these grounds, I agree with Ted V(the above poster) when he said that Emily's experiment didn't prove anything except that some of the things the therapists were saying weren't valid. Does that mean the therapy as a whole is invalid? Not at all. And if you believe that the whole thing is a quackery on no proof(as the experiment did not attempt to prove any such thing), then perhaps you should reevaluate your approach to these kinds of issues(not speaking to you directly, but to people in genereal). Allow me to quote a previous comment of mine(since it's pertinent to this discussion):
I'm sure that neither of these two possibilities were taken into account. It's very difficult to design an experiment that would satisfy everyone, but to me, anyone claiming to do any kind of science would do more than just a one-sided job like this experiment seemed. Science should be thorough, not biased. I know she's just a kid, but shit, she got published for christ's sake. If you're going to get published, then I'm going to bash you if I think you fscked up(even a little).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Ms. Rosa did a very good double blind study that did not directly refute the theraputic claims of theraputic touch but rather refuted the underlying claim that practitioners could sense the energy fields of their subjects.
:-)
I don't see how she could prove that therapists couldn't feel the energy. If you think about it, electric fields drop off in proportion to the inverse square of the distance. The claim is that an electric field is produced by internal bodily mechanisms and that the therapists could sense it.
AFAIK, theraputic touch happens very close to the surface of the skin, perhaps for this very reason. I don't have any data on how she(Emily) conducted her experiment, but unless the therapists could get close enough to the subject, they might not be able to get in the "feeling range"(ie. the E-field may be too weak at the distances used in the experiment). Of course, the closer the subjects get, the more difficult it would be to maintain a blind test. There's a possible physics explanation for you(which I'm almost sure wasn't taken into account by the experiment).
Yet another explanation would be that the therapists actually have an illusion of feeling created by their own minds. The mechanisms for "sensing" these EM-fields may be ones that everyone has: our eyes. Eyes convert EM waves into brain signals. As you know, some people have a broader range of hearing than the norm so perhaps these therapists can "see" these fields normally beyond our perception(or maybe not beyond normal perception: it may simply be a matter of training).
Since the fields are at different wavelengths than visible light, the brain may not interpret them the same(as visual appearance) and so associate a new "feeling" with the presence of these fields. So in order for a therapist to feel a field, they must have visual contact(or get so close across a thin opaque material that the field can penetrate without knowing whether or not there actually was a person on the other side).
And that's just off the top of my head.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Your joke reminded me of another one:
A physicist, a biologist and a mathematician were hanging around outside a building. They watched as one person walked into the building, and the exact same person walk out with someone else a few moments later. The physicist quickly said, "Hm. Our original count must have been mistaken." The biologist said, "The person reproduced!" And the ever helpful mathematician added, "Now, if one more person ENTERS the building, it will be empty again."
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Mojonation allows MUCH more than just file sharing. And the builtin micropayment system is just the beginning from what I've read. They even have the potential to sell cpu cycles to whomever wishes to buy them via micropayments (massive distributed computing ala SETI anyone?). How about remote storage? Everything travelling on the p2p system is encrypted I believe. Other people can store their encrypted files on your hard drive and pay for the used space via the micrpayment system. As 'always-on' high-speed internet access and computers become ubiquitous and more fully integrated with our envirmonment and our lives, these kinds of things will become possible. By that time, we'll need a good infrastructure to handle the needs and possibilities this tech offers, and I think MojoNation is definitely heading in the right direction.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Don't think so? You better tell MojoNation then. They're building a complete online p2p based micrpayment system. Looks very promising. There are a number of other p2p efforts, but most are non-commercial.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Well, you're halfway there. Electric cars already cost twice as much.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"