Actually, that is not the same. The insight he mentions is more that how an amazingly simple thing can explain something aparently complex (hence the contradiction of simple/complex, and therefore humor).
Anyway, even though Martin Gardber is a pompous fool, that book is very good when we get past his condescendence.
How stupid. People who don't use turning signals are a much greater danger. Speed enforcement is much different. Speeding isn't really bad, it just is bad if it gets out of hand. That's what cops are for. This, however, is just ridiculous.
Observe something no previously predicted or explained
Whether it was previously predicted or explained is irrelevant.
Develop a hypothesis to explain the observations
Make predictions based on the hypothesis
While that is true, it is not likely. The hypotheses should predict when the same thing, or something very similar will happen again.
For example, if my bread turns moldy, and i say it is green because it is currently cold on Mars, and because of that coldness it will be cold on Jupiter, the hypotheses is given little to know credence as the relativeness between the two is not provable.
Develop tests to determine whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect
Incorrect. Develop tests to tests the individual parts of the theory, and to test the outcome of the predictions, the hypothesis itself is never tested.
If the hypothesis is incorrect revise it based on the new observations
No. If the predictions are incorrect. And whether the new hypothesis is based on the new observations is irrelevant. It simply must not include a prediction that contradicts them.
There are two things you are completely missing. One, Science does not explain anything, hypotheses do that. Science is merely one methodology of testing a hypothesis. Two, Science relies on two rules that have never been proven. One, that the world is order and not chaos. Two, that everything is repeatable.
Science, although wonderful is quite immature when compared to the history of Religion, magic, and philosophy.
Then you don't what what the flat-earth is. No religon ever professed it. It was an idea created to discredit religions.
Columbus didn't try to prove a round earth, he said the diameter was smaller than the accepted measurement. Columbus was wrong, and would have died at sea, had he not "found" America.
Owing to a legacy architecture, most (if not all) application logic is still embedded in PL/SQL stored packages. My job: find hard coded strings, and replace with calls to the globalization API.
And this is "bad"? Sheesh, get a life dude, and switch jobs. I'd love that job. Easy work, and exposure to many people's mode of thought in a wide variety of applications. PL/SQL is very much alive, and being able to say during an interview that you pour through PL/DSQL code to enhance it with API calls will go a long way.
If this is a "bad" job, and you want a "good" job, perhaps you want to try game testing?
We equate higher price with higher quality despite there being little evidence for that).
Um, no. We equate lower price with cheapness, and there is much evidence of that.
Higher price is only a factor when the item is already "expensive". And then many factors are at play. When a software package costs more, it is assumed to have more features, because it is expensive. Not better quality, just more of an "enterprise" edition. It can also give social status, and the like. As for it being better quality, that is usually only when the other item is of the same brand, and in those cases it is usually true.
consistently refered to as terrorists in the UK media. I have never heard them refered to as 'freedom fighters'
This is mostly Reuters and CNN, two very well known world-wide news organizations.
The summary execution without a trial of someone accused of crimes, no matter how bad those crimes might be and how compelling the evidence, would be condemned no matter where it might happen. Imagine if Britain had decided to use air power against leaders of the IRA?
Why air power? Had they assasinated him i doubt much criticism would have followed. Israel uses air-power only when the situation demands it.
Further, terrrorists are not citizens, nor do they respect the law, and as such are not privy to the "due process". Further, even if they were given such a gift, they do usually not show up to trial when summoned. Therefore, the verdict must be passed without them present. In Israel this is done via the Prime Minister's cabinet. And that is the lawful process for all such targetted killings against terrororists.
Additionally, I think a large part of the critism had to do with the fact that the killing can only enflame the situation further. It just adds fuel to the people who want to whip Arabs up into an anti-israel fervour. Creating more 'martyrs' makes their job easier, not harder.
If that were the case, it wouldn't be so bad. However, when arguing with most people, this reasoning is shown to be a facade. Whether you believe it, i do not know. However, most people i have dealt with are not as courteous as you have been, and easily show ther true feelings.
Anyway, the whole "martyr" thing is ridiculous. It's like saying that we can only give in to terrorists as anything we do against them will only strengthen them. Besides, Israeli intelligence agencies have had stormy debates on whether killing someone helps or hurts. After much was thought about, the Cabinet made its decision. To disagree with the decision is one thing. A great deal of people in Israel disagree with it. However, the comments and the stories about Israel's decision seem not to mention any of this, and mostly give off the impression of "there goes Israel again...."
Agree completely. That's exactly why I think it is important to draw a distinction between the true anti-semites (those who hate the Jews as a religion and as a race) and those who criticise the nation of Israel.
True. I just found that the latter is a very small group. And most of them are simply uninformed. When facts are produced, they usually say "you're not going to say that Israel is completely innocent, are you?" and then completely ignore the evidence.
Throwing accusations of anti-semitism around as a debating tool, as some people do, reduces the shock and revulsion that we should all quite rightly feel when there is a case of true anti-semitism.
True. And agreed. However, the statement can come from the other side as well. That, not pointing out anti-semitism all the time because it can weaken it's shock value, is to already admit defeat and cause much loss where it really is happening.
I do not say they cannot defend themselves, or condemn them for self-preservation.
Have I?
This was in response to your comment Do you really believe that Israel as a state has never done anything worthy of critism? To which i responded that i do think they did, but that this criticism is how they can do thing better, and not to tell them what they can or cannot do.
Israel has much improved its textbooks in recent years. They used to be pretty bad in their stereotyping of Arabs but now they are much better.
True. But that wasn't exactly helped by the Arabs. It is very hard, and possibly detrimental, to not stereotype those from an ethnic aor religous group who are trying to kill you. The fact that Israel is removing those stereotypes, shows general "Western" maturation, and a strong democracy. As such, this is co
So anyone who critises the behavior of those in power in any way is Anti-semitic?
No. But one, they are immediately suspect, given the current situation, group think, and one-sidedness against Israel. Two, it depends on what is being criticized.
For example, when terorists are called "freedom fighters" or a government is condemned for killed a mass murderer, something that does not happen anywhere else, it is suspect. Especially with the last century, and even right now, there is a a lot of anti-semitism. the Holocost is a prime example, and France tops to the lsit in current anti-semetic incidents. There is no denying what is going on right now all over the EU against Jews. Then on college campuses very much pro-Arab anti-Israel rallies. If in these contexts Israel is condemned, especially when it is a double-standard, it is very likely anti-semitism.
Do you really believe that Israel as a state has never done anything worthy of critism?
They have done many things worthy of critism. I criticize them all the time. However, i criticize it how they can do things better, or address things otherwise. I do not say they cannot defend themselves, or condemn them for self-preservation.
Why does critising Israel have to be the same as siding with Arab extremeists?
It doesn't. However, in many cases, the criticism is based on the data that the Arabs provide, and with blatant disregard to Israel's careful records. Jenin was an excellent example of this. Fifty-three people were killed (fifty were terrorists), and yet everyone believed the Arab's ridiculous claim that it was a massacre and that hundreds had died. There was tremendous uproar and a UN commision. Finally, when Israel meticulous records were proven to be correct, the UN left, and there was hardly a peep in the media or from countries.
I also think that the Arabs who live in Gaza and the West Bank have a right to live free from danger. I think they have a right not to have their houses knocked down by military bulldozers.
There are many issues with that.
1) A great deal of Arabs in the "West Bank" were put there by Jordan after the war. They live in refugee camps under the auspices of the UNRWA. No Arab country supports them or will grant them residence. That means, they have been "refuees" for over fifty years! It's about time they got residence.
2) Israel does not raze houses normally. There are only two cases. One, when it was built without a permit. (And the razing is rare.) Two, when a terorist who live there blows himself up.
3) "Army" bulldozers? Even if they belong to the army, that modifier is irreleevant. The army is used because of possible resistence. This is the same when used against Jewish houses and caravans.
When you say: those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong
You are illustrating why it is so hard to find a settlement to the problems of the Middle East. Any sensible person knows that to label an entire group of people as 'completely in the wrong' is a silly thing to do. It is just never the case. There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of any conflicts.
One, i said that's "according to those who apply this label,".
Two, i personally beleive the Arabs are in the wrong. I am fully willing to compare facts, and back up my position. The basics are the the Jews were there first, built up ther area, and own the land under international law.
Do you really think that: The whole world condemns Israel when the USA is providing Israel with huge amounts of funding, military and otherwise?
The USA provides money to mostly everyone. Also, that money to Israel, is mostly made to be spent in the US to purchase military equipment from US companies. This money comes with many strings attached. The US uses it to control some of Israel's policies, including where Israel can sell it's intelligence and equipment too. Besi
Furthermore, to label anyone who critises the state of Israel in any way as anti-semitic (which seems to be getting increasingly common) is a really good way to weaken the word anti-semitic.
Actually, Israel is criticized mostly for non-rational reasons. Some are anti-semitic, some are a feeling for the Arabs. The latter is many times labeled anti-semitic as well. The reasoning, according to those who apply this label, is that for those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong. As such, anyone who sides with them and believes their lies, is "obviously" doing it for anti-semetic reasons.
This goes one more step though. There is much propoganda throughout the Arab world. Many lies, and much distortion of fact. The Elders of Zion is best seller there, cartoons constantly depict Israeli's as killing Arabs for fun, statistics are abused, and the like. The main reason is the various dictators are anti-semetic, and the closed press is allowed to print only their views.
The non-Arab media tends to take the Arab's point of view. Their opinions are treated as fact, yet official Israeli statements are somewhat disqualified by the wording introducing it. This is then taken as being anti-semetic.
Traditional Judaism has a rule. If all judges in a death-penalty judgements believe the victim is guilty of death, the penalty is not applied. This is because something is amiss, as it can't be that noone found some merit. This is the case with the world. The whole world condemns Israel. If noone can find merit, there is something amiss. Compare it to the Nazis. There are *still* people who stand on their side. So how can it be that *everyone* is against Israel?
Because of all this, the word anti-Semetic is appropriate. It is not a dilution. Rather, it is a statement of reality, that just happens to be against the comfortable postition assumed by all.
1) The "gifted" youth just means that his prime intelligence is in Strategics (see Keirsey.com). There are plenty of "gifted" youths in the other three intelligences that simply aren't recognized for their brilliance.
2) His MBTI is probably INTP, which is shared by about one percent of the population. As an introverted thinker, his f side is the least likely to be developed. Trying to develop it will hurt more than it helps.
3) If he doesn't care to have social skills, he probably doesn't need them at this point, so why force him?
Anyway, to learn social skills he'll need to see it as a system. There are plenty of books on the subject. But don't push it. It is unlikely that he'll even care until somewhere into his late twenties when he begins to develop his S side.
No. But it would claim that the sun went around the Earth.
And it would probably mentioned that the word *is* round, but it is *likely* that the universe is geo-centric. The roundness was based on observable evidece, whereas the centricity was based on theory.
Even if the Theory of Evolution is completely wrong* * it isn't
And how do you know it isn't? Even if there was evidence, that only makes it plausible, not correct.
Creation-Science isn't science
Nor should it be. Science tests theories based on observable, repeatable, evidence. Since the ideas expressed in Creationism are not observable or repeatable, it cannot be tested within Science's limited scope.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that is not the same. The insight he mentions is more that how an amazingly simple thing can explain something aparently complex (hence the contradiction of simple/complex, and therefore humor).
Anyway, even though Martin Gardber is a pompous fool, that book is very good when we get past his condescendence.
Reminds me of the GI Joe episode where Cobra Commander used a laser to put his (covered) face on the moon.
How stupid. People who don't use turning signals are a much greater danger. Speed enforcement is much different. Speeding isn't really bad, it just is bad if it gets out of hand. That's what cops are for. This, however, is just ridiculous.
I can't disprove the tooth fairy either. Is it just as likely to exist then, than not?
If there are stimuli pointing to that existence, yes.
Observe something no previously predicted or explained
Whether it was previously predicted or explained is irrelevant.
Develop a hypothesis to explain the observations
Make predictions based on the hypothesis
While that is true, it is not likely. The hypotheses should predict when the same thing, or something very similar will happen again.
For example, if my bread turns moldy, and i say it is green because it is currently cold on Mars, and because of that coldness it will be cold on Jupiter, the hypotheses is given little to know credence as the relativeness between the two is not provable.
Develop tests to determine whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect
Incorrect. Develop tests to tests the individual parts of the theory, and to test the outcome of the predictions, the hypothesis itself is never tested.
If the hypothesis is incorrect revise it based on the new observations
No. If the predictions are incorrect. And whether the new hypothesis is based on the new observations is irrelevant. It simply must not include a prediction that contradicts them.
There are two things you are completely missing. One, Science does not explain anything, hypotheses do that. Science is merely one methodology of testing a hypothesis. Two, Science relies on two rules that have never been proven. One, that the world is order and not chaos. Two, that everything is repeatable.
Science, although wonderful is quite immature when compared to the history of Religion, magic, and philosophy.
This sounds pretty flat earthy to me....
Then you don't what what the flat-earth is. No religon ever professed it. It was an idea created to discredit religions.
Columbus didn't try to prove a round earth, he said the diameter was smaller than the accepted measurement. Columbus was wrong, and would have died at sea, had he not "found" America.
Owing to a legacy architecture, most (if not all) application logic is still embedded in PL/SQL stored packages. My job: find hard coded strings, and replace with calls to the globalization API.
And this is "bad"? Sheesh, get a life dude, and switch jobs. I'd love that job. Easy work, and exposure to many people's mode of thought in a wide variety of applications. PL/SQL is very much alive, and being able to say during an interview that you pour through PL/DSQL code to enhance it with API calls will go a long way.
If this is a "bad" job, and you want a "good" job, perhaps you want to try game testing?
We equate higher price with higher quality despite there being little evidence for that).
Um, no. We equate lower price with cheapness, and there is much evidence of that.
Higher price is only a factor when the item is already "expensive". And then many factors are at play. When a software package costs more, it is assumed to have more features, because it is expensive. Not better quality, just more of an "enterprise" edition. It can also give social status, and the like. As for it being better quality, that is usually only when the other item is of the same brand, and in those cases it is usually true.
That's small-'f', not capital-'F' free:
*What*?
If Google were worried about bandwidth, they'd get rid of cruft like bgcolor=#ffffff and move the CSS into an external stylesheet.
And all those line breaks......
consistently refered to as terrorists in the UK media. I have never heard them refered to as 'freedom fighters'
This is mostly Reuters and CNN, two very well known world-wide news organizations.
The summary execution without a trial of someone accused of crimes, no matter how bad those crimes might be and how compelling the evidence, would be condemned no matter where it might happen. Imagine if Britain had decided to use air power against leaders of the IRA?
Why air power? Had they assasinated him i doubt much criticism would have followed. Israel uses air-power only when the situation demands it.
Further, terrrorists are not citizens, nor do they respect the law, and as such are not privy to the "due process". Further, even if they were given such a gift, they do usually not show up to trial when summoned. Therefore, the verdict must be passed without them present. In Israel this is done via the Prime Minister's cabinet. And that is the lawful process for all such targetted killings against terrororists.
Additionally, I think a large part of the critism had to do with the fact that the killing can only enflame the situation further. It just adds fuel to the people who want to whip Arabs up into an anti-israel fervour. Creating more 'martyrs' makes their job easier, not harder.
If that were the case, it wouldn't be so bad. However, when arguing with most people, this reasoning is shown to be a facade. Whether you believe it, i do not know. However, most people i have dealt with are not as courteous as you have been, and easily show ther true feelings.
Anyway, the whole "martyr" thing is ridiculous. It's like saying that we can only give in to terrorists as anything we do against them will only strengthen them. Besides, Israeli intelligence agencies have had stormy debates on whether killing someone helps or hurts. After much was thought about, the Cabinet made its decision. To disagree with the decision is one thing. A great deal of people in Israel disagree with it. However, the comments and the stories about Israel's decision seem not to mention any of this, and mostly give off the impression of "there goes Israel again...."
Agree completely. That's exactly why I think it is important to draw a distinction between the true anti-semites (those who hate the Jews as a religion and as a race) and those who criticise the nation of Israel.
True. I just found that the latter is a very small group. And most of them are simply uninformed. When facts are produced, they usually say "you're not going to say that Israel is completely innocent, are you?" and then completely ignore the evidence.
Throwing accusations of anti-semitism around as a debating tool, as some people do, reduces the shock and revulsion that we should all quite rightly feel when there is a case of true anti-semitism.
True. And agreed. However, the statement can come from the other side as well. That, not pointing out anti-semitism all the time because it can weaken it's shock value, is to already admit defeat and cause much loss where it really is happening.
I do not say they cannot defend themselves, or condemn them for self-preservation.
Have I?
This was in response to your comment Do you really believe that Israel as a state has never done anything worthy of critism? To which i responded that i do think they did, but that this criticism is how they can do thing better, and not to tell them what they can or cannot do.
Israel has much improved its textbooks in recent years. They used to be pretty bad in their stereotyping of Arabs but now they are much better.
True. But that wasn't exactly helped by the Arabs. It is very hard, and possibly detrimental, to not stereotype those from an ethnic aor religous group who are trying to kill you. The fact that Israel is removing those stereotypes, shows general "Western" maturation, and a strong democracy. As such, this is co
So anyone who critises the behavior of those in power in any way is Anti-semitic?
No. But one, they are immediately suspect, given the current situation, group think, and one-sidedness against Israel. Two, it depends on what is being criticized.
For example, when terorists are called "freedom fighters" or a government is condemned for killed a mass murderer, something that does not happen anywhere else, it is suspect. Especially with the last century, and even right now, there is a a lot of anti-semitism. the Holocost is a prime example, and France tops to the lsit in current anti-semetic incidents. There is no denying what is going on right now all over the EU against Jews. Then on college campuses very much pro-Arab anti-Israel rallies. If in these contexts Israel is condemned, especially when it is a double-standard, it is very likely anti-semitism.
Do you really believe that Israel as a state has never done anything worthy of critism?
They have done many things worthy of critism. I criticize them all the time. However, i criticize it how they can do things better, or address things otherwise. I do not say they cannot defend themselves, or condemn them for self-preservation.
Why does critising Israel have to be the same as siding with Arab extremeists?
It doesn't. However, in many cases, the criticism is based on the data that the Arabs provide, and with blatant disregard to Israel's careful records. Jenin was an excellent example of this. Fifty-three people were killed (fifty were terrorists), and yet everyone believed the Arab's ridiculous claim that it was a massacre and that hundreds had died. There was tremendous uproar and a UN commision. Finally, when Israel meticulous records were proven to be correct, the UN left, and there was hardly a peep in the media or from countries.
I also think that the Arabs who live in Gaza and the West Bank have a right to live free from danger. I think they have a right not to have their houses knocked down by military bulldozers.
There are many issues with that.
1) A great deal of Arabs in the "West Bank" were put there by Jordan after the war. They live in refugee camps under the auspices of the UNRWA. No Arab country supports them or will grant them residence. That means, they have been "refuees" for over fifty years! It's about time they got residence.
2) Israel does not raze houses normally. There are only two cases. One, when it was built without a permit. (And the razing is rare.) Two, when a terorist who live there blows himself up.
3) "Army" bulldozers? Even if they belong to the army, that modifier is irreleevant. The army is used because of possible resistence. This is the same when used against Jewish houses and caravans.
When you say:
those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong
You are illustrating why it is so hard to find a settlement to the problems of the Middle East. Any sensible person knows that to label an entire group of people as 'completely in the wrong' is a silly thing to do. It is just never the case. There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of any conflicts.
One, i said that's "according to those who apply this label,".
Two, i personally beleive the Arabs are in the wrong. I am fully willing to compare facts, and back up my position. The basics are the the Jews were there first, built up ther area, and own the land under international law.
Do you really think that:
The whole world condemns Israel
when the USA is providing Israel with huge amounts of funding, military and otherwise?
The USA provides money to mostly everyone. Also, that money to Israel, is mostly made to be spent in the US to purchase military equipment from US companies. This money comes with many strings attached. The US uses it to control some of Israel's policies, including where Israel can sell it's intelligence and equipment too. Besi
Furthermore, to label anyone who critises the state of Israel in any way as anti-semitic (which seems to be getting increasingly common) is a really good way to weaken the word anti-semitic.
Actually, Israel is criticized mostly for non-rational reasons. Some are anti-semitic, some are a feeling for the Arabs. The latter is many times labeled anti-semitic as well. The reasoning, according to those who apply this label, is that for those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong. As such, anyone who sides with them and believes their lies, is "obviously" doing it for anti-semetic reasons.
This goes one more step though. There is much propoganda throughout the Arab world. Many lies, and much distortion of fact. The Elders of Zion is best seller there, cartoons constantly depict Israeli's as killing Arabs for fun, statistics are abused, and the like. The main reason is the various dictators are anti-semetic, and the closed press is allowed to print only their views.
The non-Arab media tends to take the Arab's point of view. Their opinions are treated as fact, yet official Israeli statements are somewhat disqualified by the wording introducing it. This is then taken as being anti-semetic.
Traditional Judaism has a rule. If all judges in a death-penalty judgements believe the victim is guilty of death, the penalty is not applied. This is because something is amiss, as it can't be that noone found some merit. This is the case with the world. The whole world condemns Israel. If noone can find merit, there is something amiss. Compare it to the Nazis. There are *still* people who stand on their side. So how can it be that *everyone* is against Israel?
Because of all this, the word anti-Semetic is appropriate. It is not a dilution. Rather, it is a statement of reality, that just happens to be against the comfortable postition assumed by all.
"Apparently those 4-gig,
*What*? "Those" refers to an aforementioned thing, yet here it can only refer to "Apparently".
Time is the measurement of movement. It's that simple.
Yuck!
Perhaps ctrl-alt-delete was in order?
I think ebay should allow comments on items. Perhaps that would help, similar to review.
Don't forget the classic One Two Three . . . Infinity : Facts and Speculations of Science by George Gamow (AbeBooks might have it for cheaper.).
remake of the classic.
Remake of what classic?
This bothers me so much.
1) The "gifted" youth just means that his prime intelligence is in Strategics (see Keirsey.com). There are plenty of "gifted" youths in the other three intelligences that simply aren't recognized for their brilliance.
2) His MBTI is probably INTP, which is shared by about one percent of the population. As an introverted thinker, his f side is the least likely to be developed. Trying to develop it will hurt more than it helps.
3) If he doesn't care to have social skills, he probably doesn't need them at this point, so why force him?
Anyway, to learn social skills he'll need to see it as a system. There are plenty of books on the subject. But don't push it. It is unlikely that he'll even care until somewhere into his late twenties when he begins to develop his S side.
What is "CA"?
I guess i read i read too quikly. Thanx for explaining.
No. But it would claim that the sun went around the Earth.
And it would probably mentioned that the word *is* round, but it is *likely* that the universe is geo-centric. The roundness was based on observable evidece, whereas the centricity was based on theory.
Even if the Theory of Evolution is completely wrong*
* it isn't
And how do you know it isn't? Even if there was evidence, that only makes it plausible, not correct.
Creation-Science isn't science
Nor should it be. Science tests theories based on observable, repeatable, evidence. Since the ideas expressed in Creationism are not observable or repeatable, it cannot be tested within Science's limited scope.
ADD is a mythical disease. It's nothing more than an excuse for poor teacher to drug their students into submission.
As someone misdiagnosed with this terrible joke, i am fully aware of how poor most teachers are.