this has more to do with politicians finding out that they have the following kind of lectures online and simply want to shut this kind of thing down before students actually get educated:
"Aurélien Mondon, Do people really want what politicians are offering?, The National Times, 8 July 2010,[6]"
you would recognize that you would be incredibly stupid to do so. Its just that a journalist can't tell the difference between larger crabs and a larger crab population.
The title is a total misreading of the results and yet one more example of a journalist, who is so incapable of understanding science that they get it completely bass akward.
Crabs are getting any bigger or "super-sized" rather ocean acidification confuses crab foraging behavior. Consequently, in Chesapeake Bay, where there are efforts to conserve oysters and thus clean the bay and increase oyster production, more oysters means more crabs under high carbon regimes.
The moral of the story is not that global warming will somehow give us giant crabs, but rather that with ocean acidification, oysters and those who cultivate them may be at a disadvantage because it takes spat much longer to grow, even though they obtain a slight advantage in that their crab predators can be become confused with increasing ocean acidification.
None of this is particular good news, since there is a upper limit as to how much extra carbon dioxide both oysters and crabs can tolerate and still produce their shells. Most don't realize it, but this problem is also true for fish, who must calcify their bones in order to grow and mature. With significant ocean acidification that means less and less fish, which is not good for humans, since we obtain about 50% of our protein from the ocean. The problem with ocean acidification is that unlike carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where the cycle turns over about once every thirty years, natural pH changes needed to counteract human induced pH lowering only takes place over 100,000's or millions of years. So once we get there, we are more or less permanently there. Not to bright a prospect for mankind.
If Kim Jong Un doesn't like their music, I can't imagine he would spare it because of its internet service.
Given Kim's itchy trigger finger, Google really needs to reconsider. Instead of Austin, they should have their second high speed internet effort here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast as the effect would be revolutionary and bring us from the stone age into the 21st century. Just think what bring Mississippi out of the stone age could do. They could rightfully and proudly boast, "If we can bring Mississippi out of the stone age, just think of what we can do for you!"
Beside, just think, being able to watch as global warming produces the next Katrina live in ultra-high def at 100 Gigabits per second would give advertisers the perfect opportunity to capture hundreds of millions of eyeballs. They would make billions.
Minors don't have 1st Amendment rights. The courts have settled this long ago.
Not satisfied with its war on women, war on drugs, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, war on gays, war on hispanics the GOP is not opening up a new war on children. They will teach these young ones not to be liberal or face jail time.
Will Google also be able to broadcast in Virtual Reality so that people get to see what they want them to see? Perhaps, if so Google can give them a discount if they don't refuse to have the glasses super-glued to their customer's heads.
Will Google Glass come with a drone installed option. Now that we must arm ourselves in every social situation, I want to be sure I am prepared to close the "glasses gap".
If you think that "scientists" are mostly after money, then you don't know anything about how science works or where funding for science is actually spent.
Usually, this isn't much of a problem, since grants are so competitive these days that they must be based on already previously published results that the potential grantee seeks money to extend and explore the consequences of. No "Nobel Laureate" would be caught dead attempting to copy an idea already developed in published work and call it their own. It would be a pointless exercise that would only make them look foolish to their peers.
You seem to misunderstand what one can learn from a negative result.
A negative result is in a sense like determining that a function is non-linear, Knowing that some phenomenon behaves as a linear function is a very tight constraint upon what one can subsequently infer about that phenomenon, since there is only one way to interpret linearity. On the other hand, simply knowing that a function in non-linear, doesn't place much of a constraint at all, since there are an infinite number of ways of begin non-linear, none of which may necessarily be related to one another. One needs to know more about the precise nature of the function to reach any kind of conclusion, which of course, requires a subsequent experiment. It does NOT tell others "something" about the phenomenon (other than it is non-linear). The same is true of a null-hypothesis that can not be rejected. The outcome tells you NOTHING about the phenomenon you are attempting to study, except the fact that the experiment failed to result in a significant finding. Unlike a rejection of a null hypothesis, the acceptance of a null-hypothesis tells us nothing about the nature of error. If you have no estimate of error, then you are in effect making no scientific statement.
There is a reason why you are wrong. There aren't enough forests to support publishing all possible negative results or enough time to read them. More aptly, there are plenty of "negative" results in the scientific literature. If you count the number of scientific papers that are in disagreement on a particular point, there are a great many of them. Science works best, when there is actually evidence gathered to accept or reject a particular scientific hypothesis. A purely negative result can be obtained without taking any data at all and hence, is of little value in advancing science.
You can't shop at the Play Store unless you are willing to be relentlessly bombarded with ads and your entire life's every moved tracked to improve the bottom line of Google Corporation.
Google doesn't just make glasses. They want to own your eyeballs as well.
Who is voting for this guy? It must be a corner of WA where stupid is a virtue.
An average car produces 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The average resting human produces 170,000 liters, or 340kg carbon dioxide per year. With a moderate level of activity, we can increase this to a conservative 500kg. There is simply no comparison. Clearly, this guy is an idiot masquerading as a "representative" of people's needs.
The point is that Time Warner was FORCED to compete. That's what we as consumers need to encourage. Then and only then will we truly have "more choices". As citizens and as consumers we need to get government back into the business of making competition easier not harder. We need more "pro-competitive" politicians, who can then stand back and let truly "free" markets work.
Google, please come to Poulsbo, WA and Ocean Springs, MS where the local cable monopolies (Comcast) and (CableOne) have a monopoly stranglehold on service and pricing. I'll switch in a heartbeat.
Let's face it. The kinds of ideas that were rolling around in Ramanujan's head can not be communicated in a language other than math. Ramanujan's "problem" was that his interest in number theory was greater than anything being discussed in his other courses. Also, he had the problem that he needed to support himself by tutoring others as a source of income, which only added to his "problem".
In Newton's day there was little distinction between alchemy and science. It is incorrect to presume that Newton was principally an "alchemist". This can be seen that his work outlining the existence of the infinitesimal calculus was done prior to most of his work in alchemy. In fact, his alchemy is inconsequential to the essential nature of his significant contributions to science, except perhaps that his careless handling of mercury probably hastened his death.
It is a testament to Ramanujan's genius that when W. H.Hardy, who was himself an extraordinarily gifted mathematical genius, was asked what his greatest contribution to mathematics was, he replied "discovering Ramanaujan".
Let's face it, our brains may look like Ramanujan's, but at a molecular and inter-neuronal level the similarity ends. One only has to try to work through Ramanujan's work to quickly understand this first hand.
Anyone know where the results in the article have been or are being published and further commented upon by the mathematical community?
If you actually attempt to read Ramanujan's work, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that there is more than just motivation involved in his genius. Check out some of his generating functions if you don't think this is true and honestly ask yourself "could I have thought of this"? There is absolutely nothing "obvious" to the rest of us mere mortals, about why his incredibly complicated equations should be so incredibly accurate.
I personally doubt his inspiration came from God, and suspect it derives from a remarkably able and unique set of neuronal pathways. Nonetheless, where ever it came from, it is nothing short of amazing and something I could have never conceived of myself. Sadly, judging from the comments here, which I had hoped might actually lead to an indication of where and exactly how his conjectures were "proven" won't likely found among/. readers like myself. Perhaps this point is most profoundly made by the fact that true importance of such news never actually gets mentioned in the article or in discussions about it.
They say that if you are one step ahead, you are smart. If you are two steps ahead, you are a genius. If you are three steps ahead, you are a crackpot. In trying to understand Ramanujan's work, I would venture to guess that he was likely at least 4 or 5 steps ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
"unless the creator helped things happen this way for the purpose to create intelligent life."
Assuming that humanity is evidence of intelligent life is a very big assumption.
this has more to do with politicians finding out that they have the following kind of lectures online and simply want to shut this kind of thing down before students actually get educated:
"Aurélien Mondon, Do people really want what politicians are offering?, The National Times, 8 July 2010,[6]"
and you used these skills to do what exactly?
you would recognize that you would be incredibly stupid to do so. Its just that a journalist can't tell the difference between larger crabs and a larger crab population.
The title is a total misreading of the results and yet one more example of a journalist, who is so incapable of understanding science that they get it completely bass akward.
Crabs are getting any bigger or "super-sized" rather ocean acidification confuses crab foraging behavior. Consequently, in Chesapeake Bay, where there are efforts to conserve oysters and thus clean the bay and increase oyster production, more oysters means more crabs under high carbon regimes.
The moral of the story is not that global warming will somehow give us giant crabs, but rather that with ocean acidification, oysters and those who cultivate them may be at a disadvantage because it takes spat much longer to grow, even though they obtain a slight advantage in that their crab predators can be become confused with increasing ocean acidification.
None of this is particular good news, since there is a upper limit as to how much extra carbon dioxide both oysters and crabs can tolerate and still produce their shells. Most don't realize it, but this problem is also true for fish, who must calcify their bones in order to grow and mature. With significant ocean acidification that means less and less fish, which is not good for humans, since we obtain about 50% of our protein from the ocean. The problem with ocean acidification is that unlike carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where the cycle turns over about once every thirty years, natural pH changes needed to counteract human induced pH lowering only takes place over 100,000's or millions of years. So once we get there, we are more or less permanently there. Not to bright a prospect for mankind.
If Kim Jong Un doesn't like their music, I can't imagine he would spare it because of its internet service.
Given Kim's itchy trigger finger, Google really needs to reconsider. Instead of Austin, they should have their second high speed internet effort here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast as the effect would be revolutionary and bring us from the stone age into the 21st century. Just think what bring Mississippi out of the stone age could do. They could rightfully and proudly boast, "If we can bring Mississippi out of the stone age, just think of what we can do for you!"
Beside, just think, being able to watch as global warming produces the next Katrina live in ultra-high def at 100 Gigabits per second would give advertisers the perfect opportunity to capture hundreds of millions of eyeballs. They would make billions.
Minors don't have 1st Amendment rights. The courts have settled this long ago.
Not satisfied with its war on women, war on drugs, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, war on gays, war on hispanics the GOP is not opening up a new war on children. They will teach these young ones not to be liberal or face jail time.
Will Google also be able to broadcast in Virtual Reality so that people get to see what they want them to see? Perhaps, if so Google can give them a discount if they don't refuse to have the glasses super-glued to their customer's heads.
Will Google Glass come with a drone installed option. Now that we must arm ourselves in every social situation, I want to be sure I am prepared to close the "glasses gap".
If you think that "scientists" are mostly after money, then you don't know anything about how science works or where funding for science is actually spent.
Usually, this isn't much of a problem, since grants are so competitive these days that they must be based on already previously published results that the potential grantee seeks money to extend and explore the consequences of. No "Nobel Laureate" would be caught dead attempting to copy an idea already developed in published work and call it their own. It would be a pointless exercise that would only make them look foolish to their peers.
You seem to misunderstand what one can learn from a negative result.
A negative result is in a sense like determining that a function is non-linear, Knowing that some phenomenon behaves as a linear function is a very tight constraint upon what one can subsequently infer about that phenomenon, since there is only one way to interpret linearity. On the other hand, simply knowing that a function in non-linear, doesn't place much of a constraint at all, since there are an infinite number of ways of begin non-linear, none of which may necessarily be related to one another. One needs to know more about the precise nature of the function to reach any kind of conclusion, which of course, requires a subsequent experiment. It does NOT tell others "something" about the phenomenon (other than it is non-linear). The same is true of a null-hypothesis that can not be rejected. The outcome tells you NOTHING about the phenomenon you are attempting to study, except the fact that the experiment failed to result in a significant finding. Unlike a rejection of a null hypothesis, the acceptance of a null-hypothesis tells us nothing about the nature of error. If you have no estimate of error, then you are in effect making no scientific statement.
There is a reason why you are wrong. There aren't enough forests to support publishing all possible negative results or enough time to read them. More aptly, there are plenty of "negative" results in the scientific literature. If you count the number of scientific papers that are in disagreement on a particular point, there are a great many of them. Science works best, when there is actually evidence gathered to accept or reject a particular scientific hypothesis. A purely negative result can be obtained without taking any data at all and hence, is of little value in advancing science.
The good ones need ink as well.
You can't shop at the Play Store unless you are willing to be relentlessly bombarded with ads and your entire life's every moved tracked to improve the bottom line of Google Corporation.
Google doesn't just make glasses. They want to own your eyeballs as well.
Who is voting for this guy? It must be a corner of WA where stupid is a virtue.
An average car produces 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The average resting human produces 170,000 liters, or 340kg carbon dioxide per year. With a moderate level of activity, we can increase this to a conservative 500kg. There is simply no comparison. Clearly, this guy is an idiot masquerading as a "representative" of people's needs.
Probably not. Like so many of these ideologues, he is just a one trick pony.
The point is that Time Warner was FORCED to compete. That's what we as consumers need to encourage. Then and only then will we truly have "more choices". As citizens and as consumers we need to get government back into the business of making competition easier not harder. We need more "pro-competitive" politicians, who can then stand back and let truly "free" markets work.
Google, please come to Poulsbo, WA and Ocean Springs, MS where the local cable monopolies (Comcast) and (CableOne) have a monopoly stranglehold on service and pricing. I'll switch in a heartbeat.
Evidently judging from comments here, something that used to happen in America's past.
I'm working on an anti-gerrymander app that will help voters move into swing districts so make the practice obsolete.
Let's face it. The kinds of ideas that were rolling around in Ramanujan's head can not be communicated in a language other than math. Ramanujan's "problem" was that his interest in number theory was greater than anything being discussed in his other courses. Also, he had the problem that he needed to support himself by tutoring others as a source of income, which only added to his "problem".
In Newton's day there was little distinction between alchemy and science. It is incorrect to presume that Newton was principally an "alchemist". This can be seen that his work outlining the existence of the infinitesimal calculus was done prior to most of his work in alchemy. In fact, his alchemy is inconsequential to the essential nature of his significant contributions to science, except perhaps that his careless handling of mercury probably hastened his death.
It is a testament to Ramanujan's genius that when W. H.Hardy, who was himself an extraordinarily gifted mathematical genius, was asked what his greatest contribution to mathematics was, he replied "discovering Ramanaujan".
Let's face it, our brains may look like Ramanujan's, but at a molecular and inter-neuronal level the similarity ends. One only has to try to work through Ramanujan's work to quickly understand this first hand.
Anyone know where the results in the article have been or are being published and further commented upon by the mathematical community?
If you actually attempt to read Ramanujan's work, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that there is more than just motivation involved in his genius. Check out some of his generating functions if you don't think this is true and honestly ask yourself "could I have thought of this"? There is absolutely nothing "obvious" to the rest of us mere mortals, about why his incredibly complicated equations should be so incredibly accurate.
I personally doubt his inspiration came from God, and suspect it derives from a remarkably able and unique set of neuronal pathways. Nonetheless, where ever it came from, it is nothing short of amazing and something I could have never conceived of myself. Sadly, judging from the comments here, which I had hoped might actually lead to an indication of where and exactly how his conjectures were "proven" won't likely found among /. readers like myself. Perhaps this point is most profoundly made by the fact that true importance of such news never actually gets mentioned in the article or in discussions about it.
They say that if you are one step ahead, you are smart. If you are two steps ahead, you are a genius. If you are three steps ahead, you are a crackpot. In trying to understand Ramanujan's work, I would venture to guess that he was likely at least 4 or 5 steps ahead.
Soon someone in our Brave New World will tell you that unless you are willing to work for $ 0.03/hr, you simply lack imagination.