The best part is where he tries to intimate that he has what could be seriously or realistically a "solution" in the first place. The evoking a misunderstanding of the recent Affordable Care Act and then pretending to offer this a "solution" and not the "Trojan horse" of his own that he just complained about in others.
You must be a newbie here. Democrats are the politest of the lot. Its the various theological wings of various religio-political fund raising organizations that are fighting among each other, but the are under such deep cover that they don't even realize it.
Yes, but will a corporate person get to vote each of their share as equal to one voter? It only seems fair, so as not to discriminate against corporate people. We need to protect their 14th amendment rights too.
I honestly don't give a crap what party he's in - if he can get at least some good tech/engineer representation in that parliament of whores that we call Congress, it's win-win as far as I'm concerned.
Lets just hope his engineering is good enough to solve the simultaneous explosions of the biodiversity crisis, the population bomb, and anthropomorphic global warming crisis that are now crashing over humanity which disintegrates civilizations, while humanities leaders spend much of their time rearranging patent and other portfolios to no evident effect on any of them, except to emphasize or contribute to their exponential character.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Massie is correct in that we need other's besides lawyers in Washington, D.C. to manage to create, and to enforce the law. Its pretty clear that with humans in any great number having only 250-300 years on this planet as the consequence of the confluence of all of these events manifest them. The prognosis is not good, when you consider that in addition to the biologists, as an essential component is a highly rational series of wise simultaneous effort by all the earth's inhabitants to minimize and mitigate their "ecological footprints" on planet earth. It is unclear if Homo sapiens is capable of that level of awareness in sufficient numbers in their population. That it might come from within the Tea Party is even more doubtful. We can only hope.
Does anyone know if this new card will be capable of taking advantage of double precision under CUDA as is the case with some of their other high end Tesla boards?
"Scrapping a ship is good money even if your only making 90 cents a pound. "
Sure would be interested to know what the ratio of the "profit" for the US taxpayer will turn out to be taking into consideration what it cost to build it.
As one looks over our "ghost fleet", does anyone know the total cost to taxpayers: 1) to build and 2) to maintain and secure of this fleet?
Why do I get the feeling that we all gave up the equivalent of free 4 year education at an institution of higher education of your choice to instead build ourselves a "ghost fleet"?
The cost of our military's inventory of useless junk would certainly be worth reading about, considering that as we look at the figures we can appreciate what we might have more usefully bought for ourselves. One would think that at least the cost of disposal ought to be written into the contract of any equipment that doesn't actually get used. Maybe at least that would provide some incentive to build military hardware that actually "works".
Buy yourself a video game. It will be a lot cheaper for us taxpayers. Do you have any idea of how many copies of Mortal Combat the government could have given away for free but instead chose to build this "failed experiment"?
This is a military contractor's dream. The ultimate weapon that has to be built so that it must be quickly destroyed. Because of its advanced capabilities it can't be allowed to fall into anyone's hands, not even that of our own military, thus requiring the immediate need for a new no-bid contract to build its technological successor.
When one looks at the cost to taxpayers of what this thing cost us to build and what we will get for it in scrap, its obvious that the real failed experiment is the one in which taxpayer's haven't seem to learned any lessons about how building this kind of useless junk in the first place not only does not address our security challenges but doesn't provide any sustainable means of supporting our economy.
Beyond a reasonable doubt one would immediately have to say that that monkey must of had one heck of a case of Hox Gene mutations that affected his gustatory sensory neurons and to take his mind off of his troubles, he was at the cafe celebrating the birth of Joseph Jacques Caisare Joffre, who would become commander in chief of French forces during World War I.
"often assumed (such as say, CO2 emissions and global average temperature increase)". This is a rather poor choice to make your argument, since we know carbon dioxide is causing global average temperature increases precisely because the relationship between the two are indistinguishable or very tightly coupled throughout earth history, even though both as represented through time are very highly non-monotonic (they can be approximated by a polynomial function of very high degree) and because the former always precedes the later except in cases where other known mechanisms of forcing are present (eg. Milankovitch cycle) and sufficiently large to cause a phase shift.
Science belongs in the courtroom as much as it does in real life. In accident cases application of the laws of physics can often be sufficient to either lead to conviction or acquittal because it is reasonable to assume that they operate continuously. Same is true for scientific findings biology, chemistry, etc. Of course, this is not to say that such evidence will be used convincingly.
You seem to confuse the difference between the possibility that an infinite number of things that can go wrong (Murphy Rules!), with the reasonable expectation of whether or not they did in fact go wrong. There is a fundamental and critical difference here. Both the law and science are concerned only with the latter. Otherwise, knowledge would never have progressed much further than Zeno's paradox. Miracles are valid in court because argumentation in legal settings is based on sophism, as long as you can get a jury or judge to believe in them.
If the defendant claims that he didn't pull the trigger, but space aliens did but the police just didn't look hard enough for the evidence, most of the time they will probably be convicted. However, if the venue can be changed to Roswell, New Mexico and the jury packed with businessmen during the height of the tourist season, there is a distinct possibility of acquittal.
"Science isn't knowledge. It's the pursuit of knowledge. "
No, science is a way of knowing that some ideas are extraordinarily improbable and others virtually certain. Science is the realm of the applied mathematician, not the pure mathematician, who has the freedom and perhaps the joy of living in a totally unreal universe.
The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the concepts of statistically unlikely at the 0.05 level are not entirely mutually exclusive. The difference is what one does with respect to the what "evidence" is used to reach an outcome and how one uses that outcome that distinguishes legal argumentation from scientific argumentation, unless of course you are in Tennessee and then the reasonable or the highly probable are largely irrelevant and then one's religious views becomes the predominant deciding factor.
If you choose a topic that hardly constitutes either advocacy or science unless and until one actually does something with regard to the topic. It is the nature of the doing that is important. If the argument is sophistic, ie merely convincing without the use of the scientific method, then you might call it advocacy or whatever, depending upon one's perspective. However, it would not be science. Until one posits testable ideas and then proceeds to test them, at least in principle, it doesn't constitute science or actually enter into the realm of science. Sure a lot of what goes on in many scientific papers is of this type of argumentation, since this is generally how humans operate. However, under no circumstances does it actually rise to the level of a science. My sense, from what I have been able to read about string theory, is that much of it has been criticized for being a theory or family of theories with limited evidence to support it. One could, and I would fall in that category, regard mathematical ideas that extend, generalize, or refine string theory without tests are in fact science, but without empirical support probably do not constitute earth shaking science, although they might a later time, if it can be shown that certain results can not be obtained or explained without reference to them.
Scientists push their theories by providing evidence that is incompatible with alternative theories (those of their intellectual "competitors"). If one has an idea that one feels is correct, it hardly makes much sense in a scientific context to gather such evidence if it doesn't meet this basic requirement. Don't confuse the advocacy for particular beliefs by scientists as the intrinsically essential ingredient of science. Yes, it is essential in the context of creating a compelling argument within a society based on sophism and inter-individual human competition. However, that aspect is from a scientific perspective worthless as science. Most scientist recognize that attempting to simply advocate appealing to sophism is counterproductive in a scientific context. It would be comparable to a mathematician asserting to have completing a proof, without actually having done so in an irrefutable manner. The same distinction separates computer science from programming. You can do the latter without actually doing the former, but one can not do the former without applying the scientific method.
Slashdot Mirror
"a few at the cost of other government services"
You mean like a few extra replacement bumpers for a few A1M1Abrams Tanks or Bradley Fighting Vehicles?
The best part is where he tries to intimate that he has what could be seriously or realistically a "solution" in the first place. The evoking a misunderstanding of the recent Affordable Care Act and then pretending to offer this a "solution" and not the "Trojan horse" of his own that he just complained about in others.
You must be a newbie here. Democrats are the politest of the lot. Its the various theological wings of various
religio-political fund raising organizations that are fighting among each other, but the are under such deep cover that they don't even realize it.
He won't have to move to China. China is moving to us and what they are not moving to us, we are having shipped here at our expense.
Yes, but will a corporate person get to vote each of their share as equal to one voter? It only seems fair, so as not to discriminate against corporate people. We need to protect their 14th amendment rights too.
I honestly don't give a crap what party he's in - if he can get at least some good tech/engineer representation in that parliament of whores that we call Congress, it's win-win as far as I'm concerned.
Lets just hope his engineering is good enough to solve the simultaneous explosions of the biodiversity crisis, the population bomb, and anthropomorphic global warming crisis that are now crashing over humanity which disintegrates civilizations, while humanities leaders spend much of their time rearranging patent and other portfolios to no evident effect on any of them, except to emphasize or contribute to their exponential character.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Massie is correct in that we need other's besides lawyers in Washington, D.C. to manage to create, and to enforce the law. Its pretty clear that with humans in any great number having only 250-300 years on this planet as the consequence of the confluence of all of these events manifest them. The prognosis is not good, when you consider that in addition to the biologists, as an essential component is a highly rational series of wise simultaneous effort by all the earth's inhabitants to minimize and mitigate their "ecological footprints" on planet earth. It is unclear if Homo sapiens is capable of that level of awareness in sufficient numbers in their population. That it might come from within the Tea Party is even more doubtful. We can only hope.
You guys down under are lucky. You just have venomous snakes. We have republicans and Tea Partiers.
and the GOP nominated one, which pretty much tells you how this election will go.
Does anyone know if this new card will be capable of taking advantage of double precision under CUDA as is the case with some of their other high end Tesla boards?
This is slashdot. No one reads the specs, the article, or the manual.
Sorry but a number of other contractors have already outbid you.
"Scrapping a ship is good money even if your only making 90 cents a pound. "
Sure would be interested to know what the ratio of the "profit" for the US taxpayer will turn out to be taking into consideration what it cost to build it.
As one looks over our "ghost fleet", does anyone know the total cost to taxpayers: 1) to build and 2) to maintain and secure of this fleet?
Why do I get the feeling that we all gave up the equivalent of free 4 year education at an institution of higher education of your choice to instead build ourselves a "ghost fleet"?
The cost of our military's inventory of useless junk would certainly be worth reading about, considering that as we look at the figures we can appreciate what we might have more usefully bought for ourselves. One would think that at least the cost of disposal ought to be written into the contract of any equipment that doesn't actually get used. Maybe at least that would provide some incentive to build military hardware that actually "works".
Buy yourself a video game. It will be a lot cheaper for us taxpayers. Do you have any idea of how many copies of Mortal Combat the government could have given away for free but instead chose to build this "failed experiment"?
It was the considerably higher price tag that was the primary "military" objective.
This is a military contractor's dream. The ultimate weapon that has to be built so that it must be quickly destroyed. Because of its advanced capabilities it can't be allowed to fall into anyone's hands, not even that of our own military, thus requiring the immediate need for a new no-bid contract to build its technological successor.
When one looks at the cost to taxpayers of what this thing cost us to build and what we will get for it in scrap, its obvious that the real failed experiment is the one in which taxpayer's haven't seem to learned any lessons about how building this kind of useless junk in the first place not only does not address our security challenges but doesn't provide any sustainable means of supporting our economy.
Beyond a reasonable doubt one would immediately have to say that that monkey must of had one heck of a case of Hox Gene mutations that affected his gustatory sensory neurons and to take his mind off of his troubles, he was at the cafe celebrating the birth of Joseph Jacques Caisare Joffre, who would become commander in chief of French forces during World War I.
"often assumed (such as say, CO2 emissions and global average temperature increase)". This is a rather poor choice to make your argument, since we know carbon dioxide is causing global average temperature increases precisely because the relationship between the two are indistinguishable or very tightly coupled throughout earth history, even though both as represented through time are very highly non-monotonic (they can be approximated by a polynomial function of very high degree) and because the former always precedes the later except in cases where other known mechanisms of forcing are present (eg. Milankovitch cycle) and sufficiently large to cause a phase shift.
Science belongs in the courtroom as much as it does in real life. In accident cases application of the laws of physics can often be sufficient to either lead to conviction or acquittal because it is reasonable to assume that they operate continuously. Same is true for scientific findings biology, chemistry, etc. Of course, this is not to say that such evidence will be used convincingly.
You seem to confuse the difference between the possibility that an infinite number of things that can go wrong (Murphy Rules!), with the reasonable expectation of whether or not they did in fact go wrong. There is a fundamental and critical difference here. Both the law and science are concerned only with the latter. Otherwise, knowledge would never have progressed much further than Zeno's paradox. Miracles are valid in court because argumentation in legal settings is based on sophism, as long as you can get a jury or judge to believe in them.
If the defendant claims that he didn't pull the trigger, but space aliens did but the police just didn't look hard enough for the evidence, most of the time they will probably be convicted. However, if the venue can be changed to Roswell, New Mexico and the jury packed with businessmen during the height of the tourist season, there is a distinct possibility of acquittal.
"Science isn't knowledge. It's the pursuit of knowledge. "
No, science is a way of knowing that some ideas are extraordinarily improbable and others virtually certain. Science is the realm of the applied mathematician, not the pure mathematician, who has the freedom and perhaps the joy of living in a totally unreal universe.
The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the concepts of statistically unlikely at the 0.05 level are not entirely mutually exclusive. The difference is what one does with respect to the what "evidence" is used to reach an outcome and how one uses that outcome that distinguishes legal argumentation from scientific argumentation, unless of course you are in Tennessee and then the reasonable or the highly probable are largely irrelevant and then one's religious views becomes the predominant deciding factor.
If you choose a topic that hardly constitutes either advocacy or science unless and until one actually does something with regard to the topic. It is the nature of the doing that is important. If the argument is sophistic, ie merely convincing without the use of the scientific method, then you might call it advocacy or whatever, depending upon one's perspective. However, it would not be science. Until one posits testable ideas and then proceeds to test them, at least in principle, it doesn't constitute science or actually enter into the realm of science. Sure a lot of what goes on in many scientific papers is of this type of argumentation, since this is generally how humans operate. However, under no circumstances does it actually rise to the level of a science. My sense, from what I have been able to read about string theory, is that much of it has been criticized for being a theory or family of theories with limited evidence to support it. One could, and I would fall in that category, regard mathematical ideas that extend, generalize, or refine string theory without tests are in fact science, but without empirical support probably do not constitute earth shaking science, although they might a later time, if it can be shown that certain results can not be obtained or explained without reference to them.
Nonsense.
Scientists push their theories by providing evidence that is incompatible with alternative theories (those of their intellectual "competitors"). If one has an idea that one feels is correct, it hardly makes much sense in a scientific context to gather such evidence if it doesn't meet this basic requirement. Don't confuse the advocacy for particular beliefs by scientists as the intrinsically essential ingredient of science. Yes, it is essential in the context of creating a compelling argument within a society based on sophism and inter-individual human competition. However, that aspect is from a scientific perspective worthless as science. Most scientist recognize that attempting to simply advocate appealing to sophism is counterproductive in a scientific context. It would be comparable to a mathematician asserting to have completing a proof, without actually having done so in an irrefutable manner. The same distinction separates computer science from programming. You can do the latter without actually doing the former, but one can not do the former without applying the scientific method.