Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I'm trying to imagine how a future off-world economy might interact with the Earth economy. If we imagine a few moon bases and several orbital habitats, supporting various space industries - the first wave of really commercialising/industrialising near earth space. I can imagine luxury items, such as steak, being pretty expensive off-Earth. But i was wondering what essential components would need to shipped up the well to support those habitats that couldn't be mined or manufactured in space (given the cost of going up the well, companies would do everything they could to source as much as possible off-Earth).
  3. iNow

    Impeachment Hearings

    Ambassador Sondland just also confirmed this point today during his testimony to Congress: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/20/20974201/gordon-sondland-impeachment-hearing-testimony-biden-show-trump So much for the Trump was just trying to do the honorable thing and minimize corruption talking point.
  4. But if they happened at the same time it's not fair to the accused to try the cases separately.
  5. Today
  6. Apparently, you can also stumble on stairs that have a step that is different to the others in height.
  7. Wayne Messam, the random mayor from Florida whom none of you even knew was running in this primary, has decided to suspend his campaign. So, 18 again now, I think?
  8. I agree wholeheartedly. And yet, there are those who persist in making it.
  9. Since it may be seen as we have Been quibbling about this post. I want to make it clear that I did not downvote it. I do not down vote posts. in this case I did upvote it to cancel out the downvote since the post was directed at me, but I have thought about it and will never do it again because Who am I to cancel out someone else’s opinion. I see little point in a downvote war, though honestly most people have a lot more to loose than I do, and if someone thinks I’m an ass they should just tell me so along with a reason I don’t need to Google before deciding if I should be offended. I assure that I will never respond with a downvote. I would rather face the wrath of the Moderators to whom I should apologize now since this is somewhat off topic.😇 I would hope that a grand jury would serve the purpose of preventing this scenario as presented. society should have the option of a separate trial for a separate case ( my opinion)... in the case of serial killing and rape, etc.
  10. I think it requires a rather profound misunderstanding of how science funding works to make that argument. To explain for those following - say I apply for a federal grant. The whole packet might be 50-100 pages of densely written technical documents. I will probably take me a month or more to put together. It has a 10-20% chance of being funded, and if it's a big one, might net $1 million dollars of funding. My institution immediately takes 55% as overhead. The vast majority of the rest will pay for the salaries of the people I employ. Some will go towards lab costs. If I'm lucky I might get to claim one month of summer salary (for the three months of the year the university doesn't pay me) for 3-5 years. Ergo, I might actually pocket a few thousand dollars at best. On the other side, Ian Plimer - a mining geologist who doesn't even work on climate science, pockets over $400,000 per year from the fossil fuel industry, and "coincidentally" is an ardent critic of climate change. If I'm going to make up data or espouse a false belief for profit, I'm sure as hell not going to be saying climate change is real.
  11. What is described is somewhat related to an interesting phenomenon called the size-weight illusion. It is a multisensory phenomenon in which, roughly speaking larger objects feel heavier, even if they are not. The interesting bit is that these studies look at the interaction between feedforward (anticipation of weight) and feedback information. In the case of OP it is fairly clear, the discrepancy between anticipated weight and experienced one is large, and as such the feedback mechanism cannot cope with the excess forces (the jolt may be a surprise reaction due to the perceived discrepancy). However, in cases where, for example two objects of same weight but different size are presented, the muscle stiffness may be different before lifting the object (as the feedforward mechanisms anticipates that the larger object is heavier) but then the feedback kicks in and adjusts closer to the actual weight. The perception, however, is still that the larger object is actually heavier. It should also be noted that anticipation is common to basically all animals with an CNS, not only to arboreal ones, as relying on feedback mechanisms is typically too slow for most dynamic situations. For example, catching a ball requires anticipation of its flight path. Some simpler animals have faster feedback loops in which locally for example legs convey information regarding the status to other legs, without need for central coordination. But even then in hunting spiders one has found evidence that they may anticipate to some degree anticipate prey behaviour.
  12. Consider the scenario where someone is accused of mugging another person at gunpoint, and during the crime, they shot and killed the person being mugged. You have a murder trial — not guilty. That should preclude going back and trying them for manslaughter, or attempted murder, or any of the other lesser charges. Because then they could keep going back and having trial after trial and potentially keeping the person locked up because of how bail is handled. They could also do this if they brought charges for robbery, and for illegal gun possession, as separate cases. An innocent person could be under the thumb of government prosecution for a really, really long time, and that's inherently unfair and abusive. AFAIK the limit of this is for crimes taking place in different jurisdictions. A serial killer who is e.g. accused of 10 murders in 10 different states can face 10 trials.
  13. Yes. And that is a rebuttal of the silly notion (seen in some discussions) that climate scientists are making it up to secure funding, since they would still be charged with studying climate anyway Which again underscores that we need to be studying the phenomenon
  14. I did google it. I admit i do have difficulty understanding what some people mean on occasion but in the case quoted i was simply trying to be humorous when i found the opportunity, because it presented before i found what dimreeper was alluding to. I did take his advice read the whole thread then realized my mistake. Still i was puzzled as to why anyone would think that anyone participating in the thread should have to prove mistermack wrong. Perhaps I need to read the thread again? Oh, I found it... 😒
  15. While there is an argument for putting one more color beyond blue, Newton's reason for adding 2 had to do with his religious belief that the number 7 held a special significance.
  16. dimreepr

    Free will

    it seems that what ever we choose, its both and neither: so I choose to be content with neither and both.
  17. I think in this case it's on everyone. An extraordinary claim would be that the climate won't change at all over time...that's never happened. Weather of course is the noise, but the glacier and icefield melting is pretty much undeniable evidence which way things are currently going. The rate of change is the greatest threat. Organisms need time to adapt and evolve, man included. Man at least has a chance to plan based on gathering and evaluating best evidence.
  18. True. The people who show up to argue the contrary-to-science viewpoint typically aren't here to learn, but rather to instigate and pontificate, and it invariably ends up that they don't have much of an understanding of what they are critiquing (both the details of the science and often, generally how science is done). It's not just climate change where this occurs. IOW, can't be addressed as an information gap problem, because they don't think they have an information gap. (See also: Dunning-Kruger syndrome)
  19. Eise

    Free will

    OK, I am a bit bored, so I looked at the video. Same kind of errors over and over again. At 2:15: 'The least controversial definition I could come up with: Free will is the capability to have acted differently'. Obviously he is unaware of the many pages of philosophical articles that are already written about this definition. There are (at least) two ways of understanding this: The strict metaphysical reading: in a determined universe everything is fixed, so every event happens, or happened exactly as it follows of causal conditions before. In this sense there is no way of 'acting differently' The modal (sometimes called 'iffy') sense, meaning that if the circumstances would have been slightly different, something else would have happened. One of these slight differences is our will. To give an example of the second reading: one day I go to a vegetarian restaurant, and the next day to a 'normal' restaurant. Is the sentence 'I could have ordered a beefsteak' true or false? Obviously there is no beefsteak on the menu of the vegetarian restaurant, so in this case the sentence is false. But for the 'normal' restaurant it is true: it was on the menu card. However, I took a vegetarian dish in the 'normal' restaurant. So the sentence is non-trivial true, even if I ordered something else. It was my will that decided differently. So really, in this sense, I could have ordered beefsteak. And it has next to nothing to do with determinism. Nearly all non-compatibilist determinists take the metaphysical meaning. At 2:30: The idea is that you are in complete control of your actions, and any decisions you make are determined only by your conscious self. First, he does not define what this 'conscious self' is. Is it a soul that can only observe and is completely powerless? And what is complete control? Does it mean control without determined history? That is nonsense too: a thermostat controls the temperature, but it is a completely determined system. There is no contradiction between being in control, and being determined. At 4:15 Can you choose not to want something? Another nonsense definition. Free will is at most being able to act according your own wishes and beliefs. 'Free will' does not mean 'free from influences': it means that a person can choose his actions, that she is 'free to act', not who or what she is. So, @Robert Wilson: why did you post the link? What do you think? PS. You should look at this: Free Will, Determinism and Choice, and its followups.
  20. It's a pretty common logical fallacy where you misrepresent the position of someone else then argue against that misrepresentation instead of their actual position. You either don't understand the position of the other person well enough to argue against it or you're intentionally misrepresenting them to claim some sort of victory you didn't earn.
  21. My understanding is that if you stack murder cases and the defendant is found not guilty, then you find evidence that proves the defendant did in fact do one or more of the murders. The defense attorney will argue double jeopardy should the prosecution pursue trial for the murders they have new evidence for. Is my understanding wrong? Now I would like to repeat your question how is that different from a statute of limitations? To me it would seem completely different other than the possible outcome of no retrial On the other hand if my understanding is correct they could legally press for trial of any murder not pursued in the original trial. Now, i am not sure exactly what a strawman is. I’m not sure if it is Innocence, naivety, or that i simply lack the experience one would have to have to know what a straw-man is so I will have to Google it. 😇
  22. I see it as a badge of honour.
  23. I love a strawman... how is that different from a statute of limitations? the point is, a trial costs, so if they think a commiter of lessor crimes, after a statute of law, be on trial they should pay. But his opinion is...
  24. You still haven't provided a reference to support this.
  25. First let me thank you for introducing me to the Mandelbox, which I understand was first demonstrated in 2010 +1 I would like to discuss the danger inherent in what you are doing with reference to your first picture. Now here's the thing: The sort of image you show (on the top left) of photons is inherently different from the fractal surface you also exhibit at the top right. The difference is the scale invariance which is a fundamental property of fractals. If you were to enlarge the photon picture so that one blob occupied the same picture areas as the current 9, you would see just one blob. On the other hand if you enlarged the fractal image that way you would still see 9 blobs. I look forward to your comment on this difference.
  26. Well put, I'll continue to put some time into this and hopefully have something more substantial to offer next time. Thanks
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.