Who do you believe? A mysterious organization that uses nefarious and questionable means to gather their information? Or, do you believe what comes out of the mouth of a politician?
If the number of patents is supposed to be a measure of top inventiveness, Lowell Wood has nothing on the likes of Kia Silverbrook (4,665 US utility patents) or Shunpei Yamazaki (4063 US utility patents).
I doubt that the Hadza in Tanzania, San in Namibia, and Tsimane in Bolivia, "who live roughly the same lifestyle humans did in the Paleolithic" probably did little with abstract thought and have little complex technologies to deal with as compared to modern people. As a result I am sure they need less sleep.
Well, if you want to redefine science to suit your needs, then, sure, it's a science.
By the way, what is your definition of science, and how is it different than any other philosophical paradigm? By your reasoning, one could easily make a convincing case that accounting is a "formal science" unless you want to arbitrarily hold "formal sciences" to include just what you deign to be a science. Anyhow, all empirical science boils down to Physics, and many physicists use Mathematics as a tool to assist in creating models in an attempt to make sense of their observations. Both Physics and Mathematics are paradigms, but one is a science, and the other is a discipline.
Nobody said there is nothing worthy of study in computer science. (Where did that even come from?) Let's just not define it as something that it is not.
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Math is not a science---it's a philosophical paradigm. There are also some very important differences between science and mathematics because of this. For example, in mathematics, a "absolute" proof can be obtained without empirical evidence.
The concept of a "formal science" is simply a long-winded way of defining an art or discipline. It doesn't make things into a science just because someone says it is.
Also, there is a good smell test to use: If you need to add "science" to the end of it, then it's not a science. Mathematical science is not a science... Computer science is not a science...
How about having the government not spend tons on stuff that is not needed (like the F-35 in your example) and then NOT giving the savings to NASA? Give taxpayers a break and help move the "Tax Freedom Day" back a few days? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
NASA needs another vendor (now that Russia and the US aren't on the best terms) for heavy lifting. So, why not work with another country with questionable politics?
Slashdot Mirror
Who do you believe? A mysterious organization that uses nefarious and questionable means to gather their information? Or, do you believe what comes out of the mouth of a politician?
So, why has the US allowed China to get ahead in the man-made island race?
I would rather have a Cuban sandwich. They are delicious.
'nuf said.
By the way, how much perchlorate was in the regolith simulant?
The problem with simulations is that they are just that---simulations.
So, how many planets has the so-called "Real-Life Space Botanist" done any work on?
Sounds very theoretical for real-life.
Most schools have close to 900 hours of instructional time per year.
It's not about having an abundance of choices. I find that none of the choices is what I want.
LOL! Author's cut? Don't be ridiculous.
I was under the understanding that, at least in the US, papers resulting from public funding should already be in the public domain.
Edison did invent the research equivalent of a sweatshop.
If the number of patents is supposed to be a measure of top inventiveness, Lowell Wood has nothing on the likes of Kia Silverbrook (4,665 US utility patents) or Shunpei Yamazaki (4063 US utility patents).
Edison did not share credit with his employees who produced the majority of his patents.
I doubt that the Hadza in Tanzania, San in Namibia, and Tsimane in Bolivia, "who live roughly the same lifestyle humans did in the Paleolithic" probably did little with abstract thought and have little complex technologies to deal with as compared to modern people. As a result I am sure they need less sleep.
This is just proof of how anything that has the word "Dyson" makes the news.
http://www.abbysguide.com/vacu...
It could be anything; a faulty stench coil...some cheese on the lens.... Who knows?
Rather than have diesel hybrid cars it would be better to have diesel electric cars.
I am surprised...not that there's another Flash exploit, but that people still use flash.
Well, if you want to redefine science to suit your needs, then, sure, it's a science.
By the way, what is your definition of science, and how is it different than any other philosophical paradigm?
By your reasoning, one could easily make a convincing case that accounting is a "formal science" unless you want to arbitrarily hold "formal sciences" to include just what you deign to be a science.
Anyhow, all empirical science boils down to Physics, and many physicists use Mathematics as a tool to assist in creating models in an attempt to make sense of their observations. Both Physics and Mathematics are paradigms, but one is a science, and the other is a discipline.
COBOL for .NET is not designed for use with big iron.
Keep COBOL weird!
Quantum algorithms: sounds like applied math and physics.
Of course, all STEM ultimately becomes math & physics at some level.
Nobody said there is nothing worthy of study in computer science. (Where did that even come from?) Let's just not define it as something that it is not.
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Math is not a science---it's a philosophical paradigm. There are also some very important differences between science and mathematics because of this. For example, in mathematics, a "absolute" proof can be obtained without empirical evidence.
The concept of a "formal science" is simply a long-winded way of defining an art or discipline. It doesn't make things into a science just because someone says it is.
Also, there is a good smell test to use: If you need to add "science" to the end of it, then it's not a science.
Mathematical science is not a science...
Computer science is not a science...
You do realize that NASA is the middle-man. They don't make most of the stuff they use.
How about having the government not spend tons on stuff that is not needed (like the F-35 in your example) and then NOT giving the savings to NASA?
Give taxpayers a break and help move the "Tax Freedom Day" back a few days? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
NASA needs another vendor (now that Russia and the US aren't on the best terms) for heavy lifting.
So, why not work with another country with questionable politics?