On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:59:17 -0500, nemesis wrote:

>> > _That_ is why I'm not a teacher.
>>
>> Don't teach kids. Teach adults.
> 
> wise suggestion.  Adults seeking education are eager to learn because
> most likely were the types of kids who didn't want to learn back then
> and because of that took quite a beating in life.  They are much more
> humble now.

Unfortunately, it's adults who get to make all the important decisions, 
and many of those adults aren't much more humble - if anything, they're 
more obstinate in saying "yes, the world is flat, if it was round, [...]".

At least kids have open minds, for the most part.  It's only when they've 
been filled with the ignorance and hate of those who believe that their 
beliefs supersede actual knowledge and learning that their minds close.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the 
>>> public dime, because it is a matter of public debate,
> 
>> No it's not.
> 
>   Just read a funny anecdote of what happens when things are considered
> "a matter of public debate":

Good story. However, even *if* it used to be a matter of public debate, the 
debate has occurred in public as specified by the laws of our country, and 
the result has been obtained that ID is a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce 
religion into the science class, which is also illegal in this country.

Just like it's a matter of public debate whether Fred should go to jail or 
not, right up until the jury comes back with a verdict.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> which is also illegal in this country.

  As if that had stopped it before... :P

  (I read somewhere that recently Barack Obama decided to announce the
National Day of Prayer, or something like that, even though shortly before
a judge had ruled it unconstitutional for the president to do so. I suppose
there were no consequences of this clear breaking of the 1st amendment...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the
> > > public dime, because it is a matter of public debate,
>
> > No it's not.
>
>   Just read a funny anecdote of what happens when things are considered
> "a matter of public debate":
>
> "In Brockport, N.Y, in 1887, M.C. Flanders argued the case of a flat
> Earth for three nights against two scientific gentlemen defending
> sphericity. Five townsmen chosen as judges voted unanimously for a
> flat Earth at the end."
>
>   You can really come up with "proofs" of any argument you want. For example
> in 1864 an author named William Carpenter published a book named "Theoretical
> Astronomy Examined and Exposed - Proving the Earth not a Globe", and later
> in 1885 another book named "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe". He
> was being serious.
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

fun anecdote, no doubt. :)

As far as I remember too, Mormoism started complete with witnesses and all
recognized legally.  First religion I think started with full legal backing...

That's the problem with layman thinking they can do better than centuries of
professionals dedicated to research.  They assume reality can be voted.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:20:18 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> They assume reality can be voted.

I blame American Idol. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/9/2011 8:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> if the universe isn't logically consistent than science would have to
>> be wrong on a huge scale,
>
> I don't think so.
>
>> You would need to.. have an inconsistent universe, which never the
>> less, managed to be consistent on the large scale only. Like..
>> statistically stable, but completely unstable on the basic level.
>
> We have that already. It's called quantum mechanics. :-)
>
>> Mind, this wouldn't preclude it being consistent, it would only mean
>> that events where not predictable on the smallest scale, but that the
>> law of averages/big numbers both made it consistent once you had
>> enough events to look at.
>
> Again. :-)
>
But.. This only seems to be the case, isn't certain, and its not so 
random you can't create conditions where one result is **way** more 
probable than another. Still not "inconsistent".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/9/2011 8:57 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Think we may be talking about different things here... The idea I am
>> talking about is that you programmaticaly do the equivalent of:
>
> Well, if you're talking about logical reversability, sure. But that's
> not all that much more interesting than memoization.
>
>> 1 + 2 + 4 * 5 = result
>> roll back to 1 + 2
>> 3 * 10 + 5 = result
>
> Pulling out the result is irreversible.
>
>> The point of the idea being that if you do not have to "turn on" a
>> switch, only shut some off, the cost is lower.
>
> That's not how it works. You have to drive the circuit backwards. You
> don't just turn off parts of it, as that's irreversible too. Unless
> you're talking about "logical reversibility", which isn't what I'm
> talking about.
>
Yeah, what I was talking about was a programmatic attempt at applying 
logical reversibility. The stuff you are talking about is completely 
different.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 10-1-2011 13:16, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Well, there are plenty of other plants that are so mutated that they are
>> now incapable of reproducing for themselves but for some special animal
>> that farms them. (I might mention, for example, the fungi that
>> leafcutter ants culture, for example.) The natural world is full of
>> complex partnerships such as this. I don't think you could call the
>> banana "unatural".
>
>    Well, many people seem to think that anything that is man-made (or only
> possible because of human intervetion) is by definition artificial and
> unnatural (and hence obviously harmful).

Yes over-population is one of the biggest problems.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But.. This only seems to be the case, isn't certain,

It's as certain as anything. There's actually experimental evidence that 
it's not only unknowable, but actually random. We *know* it's not just a 
limitation in our knowledge or what we're measuring, but that the 
measurements really aren't even there until we look.

 > and its not so
> random you can't create conditions where one result is **way** more 
> probable than another.

Only statistically. For any given single interaction, the probability is 
always the same.  In QED, that's called "charge".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah, what I was talking about was a programmatic attempt at applying 
> logical reversibility. The stuff you are talking about is completely 
> different.

Logical reversibility hasn't anything to do with saving energy, altho it 
might have something to do with speeding up computations. obviously, logical 
reversibility is a necessary precursor to physical reversibility.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message