That's the GPs point. You wouldn't stop and decide. If you know they are both equally as good, then the first time you would take either path, doesn't matter which one.
The second time, you would take the one you took last time (saves you having to stop and think about it) because you survived by going down that one last time. Re-enforcement.
... A kid wearing a RFID tag that works even 50% of the time means that he stands a 50% better chance of being found than a kid with no tag at all...
Not if they have started relying on RFID tags and stopped taking roll calls. In that case all the children are 50% worse off (or 50% of the children are worse off, whichever).
If they still have to take roll calls then what's the point in having the tags at all?
... using that logic, I suggest you turn off your computer right away...
Our computers are not involved in life or death situations (at least mine's not) but kids in a burning building is life or death and if RFID tags do go wrong it could be curtains.
Tags will be used by lazy teachers more interested in their next coffee breeak rather than the welfare of the children in their care. (A childs welfare involves a lot more than knowing where they are, and this system will be used as a replacement for caring for the children).
... Hungerhill chair of governors, Moira Bates, said she was unaware of the project and was not prepared to comment until she had had a meeting at the school...
WTF!? Surely the school governors passed this trial before it happened?
I don't like being cateogrised either, but it's only advertising. I know it's tempting when we see big shiny banner ads to click on them, but we can resist!;-)
... the biggest downside is that someone, somewhere is deciding what sort of stuff expose me to...
Someone, Somewhere doesn't exist. It's an algorithm. A programmer/marketeer tweak the program and adjust according to the returns. Basically what I'm saying is:
... However, the term is mostly used in three different contexts: when referring to a tool (or machine); a technique; the cultural force; or a combination of the three...
I suspect that mashups can be counted as a tool, a technique and a cultural force.
... That's exactly the way a marketing person would explain it...
Not sure how my explanation was marketing, but here it is in a different format.
technology:
"In general, "technology" is the relationship that society has with its tools and crafts, and to what extent society can control its environment. The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers a definition of the term: "the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area" and "a capability given by the practical application of knowledge".[1] Ursula Franklin, in her 1989 "Real World of Technology" lecture, gave another definition of the concept; it is "practice, the way we do things around here".[2] The term is often used to imply a specific field of technology, or to refer to high technology, rather than technology as a whole.[3] Bernard Stiegler defines technology in two ways: as "the pursuit of life by means other than life," and as "organized inorganic matter."[4] However, the term is mostly used in three different contexts: when referring to a tool (or machine); a technique; the cultural force; or a combination of the three."
(wikipedia)
mashup:
"A mashup is a web application that combines data from more than one source into a single integrated tool; a typical example is the use of cartographic data from Google Maps to add location information to real-estate data from Craigslist, thereby creating a new and distinct web service that was not originally envisaged by either source."
(wikipedia)
My interpretation of that would be that a mashup is a technology.
They automate a process that would have previously been done manually. Technology does not just apply to hardware.
You would call software that allowed faster gear changes on a car a new technology. In the same way, software that allows faster assimilation of information (mashups) is a new technology.
Remember, they had actually been arrested, and who is to say what an infamous crime is? Like almost all of the American constitution it is extremely ill defined, if at all. (i.e. "UnAmerican")
p.s. I think that the Bush administration does abuse it's power and adding these people to the international criminal database is stretching the law (to say the least). The point I am trying to make is tighten up your constitution or things like this will keep happening.
... "Samsung has announced that it has developed the world's first 64Gb(8GB) NAND flash memory chip using a 30nm production process, which opens the door for companies to produce memory cards with upto 128GB capacity"...
... Are you telling me that Americans, Brits, Irish, Australians, Canadians etc look down on the rest of the world because they don't speak English as a first language?...
I always thought it should be the Vogelstein-Steiger number anyway as Bert Vogelstein is the most cited scientist and Rod Steiger is the most highly connected actor in hollywood.
... You can show that a specific thing can be understood. But you can't (to my knowledge) generalize that. (Maybe logician somewhere has an inductive proof which would show me wrong.)...
There may or may not be a rigorous proof of the validity or effectiveness of the scientific method. However the onus would be on someone to show a set of circumstances where it didn't work and therefore disprove it.
However, the scientific method includes rigorous re-testing. If some hypothesis takes us further from the truth about a particular question then it will soon be found out because anything based on it won't work.
... So when you encounter a new problem you first have to believe that the process which has worked countless times before will continue to work...
It I let go of a ball while standing outside my house I know it will drop to the ground. The reason I know this is because it has every time before. I don't believe it will. I know it will. Even if you argue that it is still belief, it's based on pretty solid and extremely rigorous observations/evidence/testing. If someone could show me a case where the ball doesn't fall to the ground, I'll probably question them before I question gravity. (Dropping a ball while orbiting the earth doesn't count. The ball is still falling, I just happen to be falling at the same rate).
It is exactly the same for the scientific method. Give me an example when it hasn't worked?
Experiments that go wrong are not a failure of the scientific method. Neither is a scientist retracting a previous paper. In fact they are both additional proof that it does work.
... it is based on the belief that the world is intelligible...
Are you saying the world isn't intelligible? Science has done a much better job of understanding the world than any religion. That knowledge can be used for good or bad, but we have a much better understanding of the world now, than when religion was trying to make sense of it.
... it can be understood by using the scientific method. If you don't believe this there is no point in doing science...
The scientific method is a methodology. It's a way of doing things. It exists! You can't believe/not believe in it. You can choose to ignore it, if you wish. You can choose to believe it doesn't work, if you wish. But the scientific method exists.
Evidence suggests it is a good method to use to try an understand the world.
It's easy to steal a desktop from a public building. It happened in a local hospital. Two guys dressed in work clothes walked in, found an empty office, took away the desktop and walked out with it. Thankfully they didn't have to worry about opening the door while carrying the equipment. The security guard did that for them!!!
Ahh, back in the days when hacking meant changing a punch card to alter the input to valve number 27 in order to light up the 3rd bulb from the right rather than the 7th, all just as a practical joke to mess up the prof's experiment. Then he'd have to go back to the drawing board, write a new mathematical formula and send it to the "programmers department" to create a new punch card.
I was being partially tongue in cheek. However, if you look at apple's site (the link to all new features (about 20 or so)) the majority of them have been available on XP.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read or understand your parent post at all?
That's the GPs point. You wouldn't stop and decide. If you know they are both equally as good, then the first time you would take either path, doesn't matter which one.
The second time, you would take the one you took last time (saves you having to stop and think about it) because you survived by going down that one last time. Re-enforcement.
Not if they have started relying on RFID tags and stopped taking roll calls. In that case all the children are 50% worse off (or 50% of the children are worse off, whichever).
If they still have to take roll calls then what's the point in having the tags at all?
You winna' get yir poodin'
(It was a Scot's accent if I remember)
Our computers are not involved in life or death situations (at least mine's not) but kids in a burning building is life or death and if RFID tags do go wrong it could be curtains.
Tags will be used by lazy teachers more interested in their next coffee breeak rather than the welfare of the children in their care. (A childs welfare involves a lot more than knowing where they are, and this system will be used as a replacement for caring for the children).
WTF!? Surely the school governors passed this trial before it happened?
I don't like being cateogrised either, but it's only advertising. I know it's tempting when we see big shiny banner ads to click on them, but we can resist! ;-)
Someone, Somewhere doesn't exist. It's an algorithm. A programmer/marketeer tweak the program and adjust according to the returns. Basically what I'm saying is:
First post, I hope.
From the technology defintion:
I suspect that mashups can be counted as a tool, a technique and a cultural force.
Not sure how my explanation was marketing, but here it is in a different format.
technology:
(wikipedia)
mashup:
(wikipedia)
My interpretation of that would be that a mashup is a technology.
They automate a process that would have previously been done manually. Technology does not just apply to hardware.
You would call software that allowed faster gear changes on a car a new technology. In the same way, software that allows faster assimilation of information (mashups) is a new technology.
Remember, they had actually been arrested, and who is to say what an infamous crime is? Like almost all of the American constitution it is extremely ill defined, if at all. (i.e. "UnAmerican")
p.s. I think that the Bush administration does abuse it's power and adding these people to the international criminal database is stretching the law (to say the least). The point I am trying to make is tighten up your constitution or things like this will keep happening.
I did that withouth really listening to the accent properly. They were actually Danish. Ooops!
So where does the 512 come from?
Sadly, that may well be true.
I always thought it should be the Vogelstein-Steiger number anyway as Bert Vogelstein is the most cited scientist and Rod Steiger is the most highly connected actor in hollywood.
There may or may not be a rigorous proof of the validity or effectiveness of the scientific method. However the onus would be on someone to show a set of circumstances where it didn't work and therefore disprove it.
However, the scientific method includes rigorous re-testing. If some hypothesis takes us further from the truth about a particular question then it will soon be found out because anything based on it won't work.
It I let go of a ball while standing outside my house I know it will drop to the ground. The reason I know this is because it has every time before. I don't believe it will. I know it will. Even if you argue that it is still belief, it's based on pretty solid and extremely rigorous observations/evidence/testing. If someone could show me a case where the ball doesn't fall to the ground, I'll probably question them before I question gravity. (Dropping a ball while orbiting the earth doesn't count. The ball is still falling, I just happen to be falling at the same rate).
It is exactly the same for the scientific method. Give me an example when it hasn't worked?
Experiments that go wrong are not a failure of the scientific method. Neither is a scientist retracting a previous paper. In fact they are both additional proof that it does work.
Are you saying the world isn't intelligible? Science has done a much better job of understanding the world than any religion. That knowledge can be used for good or bad, but we have a much better understanding of the world now, than when religion was trying to make sense of it.
The scientific method is a methodology. It's a way of doing things. It exists! You can't believe/not believe in it. You can choose to ignore it, if you wish. You can choose to believe it doesn't work, if you wish. But the scientific method exists.
Evidence suggests it is a good method to use to try an understand the world.
It's easy to steal a desktop from a public building. It happened in a local hospital. Two guys dressed in work clothes walked in, found an empty office, took away the desktop and walked out with it. Thankfully they didn't have to worry about opening the door while carrying the equipment. The security guard did that for them!!!
Ahh, back in the days when hacking meant changing a punch card to alter the input to valve number 27 in order to light up the 3rd bulb from the right rather than the 7th, all just as a practical joke to mess up the prof's experiment. Then he'd have to go back to the drawing board, write a new mathematical formula and send it to the "programmers department" to create a new punch card.
Boy were we crazy! ;-)
I was being partially tongue in cheek. However, if you look at apple's site (the link to all new features (about 20 or so)) the majority of them have been available on XP.
Erm..., How long is a decade?
There, fixed that for you! ;-)
No mod points at the mo. but mod this up +1 Intelligent/Clear/Concise/Accurate.