colah

Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if it is actually an experiment in the extent to which the scientific community will accept or at least consider ludicrous claims because they come from an authority figure.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that these claims shouldn't be tested. But it would be interesting to see the way people react. Hesitation, for example.

I've actually switched from reading HN to mostly reading Reddit.

The level of discourse increases quite a bit in subreddits, and you can usually find good discussions on even obscure interests. On the other hand, its pretty rare for the level of discourse to get to the level of HN. But level of discourse isn't the only quality of Reddit.

I think the main reason for me switching to mostly reading Reddit was because I found it very comforting to read r/atheism (my family is very Christian, mostly fundamentalist and I was a closeted Atheist). I suspect that emotional support is what a lot of people go to reddit for.

I think it really depends on the subreddit. Once you start getting into speciality subreddits, the level of the discourse increases.

Speaking in your head is called subvocalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization) and many forms of speed reading get the learner to eliminate it.

Subvocalization has several draw backs. One is that it is very bad at multitasking (eg. try reading this comment while counting).

It turns out that when you are subvocalizing, you send tiny impulses to your throat as though you are speaking, just not strong enough to do so. So it is possible to eavesdrop on subvocalization (NASA has experimented with this -- see wiki article).

Some people naturally don't subvocalize because of learning disabilities; they usually have trouble writing and speaking because they have to translate their thoughts into English.

Of course the idea that you are thinking in a language is rather terrifying. Consider how it is moulding your thoughts. The idea that language effects your thoughts is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. (Some people have tried to make better languages to think in, see lojban.)

I find it interesting to note that when I program, I think, at least partially, in that language -- I've even noticed that I attach sounds to some operators in C. I also notice that the way I think varies depending on the area of math I'm working in: when I am doing algebra or calculus, it's a combination of subvocalized math and visualisation of formulas, whereas complex analysis is often almost entirely visual and set theoretic topology often is neither subvocalized or visualised.

/rant

Also, by forcing people to invest time like this, they build customer loyalty. The customers don't want to admit that they were wrong.

On the other hand, this could backfire if someone gets fed up. It only builds loyalty if the customers tolerate this abuse -- because then they need to explain to themselves why they did.

But its not just the size of the market... Windows machines are more likely to come into contact with another windows machine than macs are to come in contact with other macs. Thus a mac virus will spread much more slowly...

This is why homogeneity is dangerous. The more diversity an ecosystem has, the less vulnerable it is to viri, whether we're talking about crops or computer networks.

I'm not sure the three wishes chosen are the best possible.

Obviously, ``Five more wishes, please.'' Would be nice, but the Jinn obviously would have refused.

Something that would have broken entropy would have been nice, though. A battery that can give infinite current...

A spaceship would also have been a good choice.

_We_ might ourselves be a resources. A novel life form.

And the result is that a lot of experts go and make their own wikis, because they can't merge their content into Wikipedia. Which kind of defeats the whole centralisation advantage of Wikipedia.

Interesting. You're the second recommendation I've been given for Munkres. This list of recommended books in topology: http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/Other/topologybooks.pdf suggests some other books over it, however.

Personally, I've just started reading Hocking & Young (Shocking and Fun!) and it seems quite good so far.

I've made some substantial progress in _Counterexamples in topology_ and it's really good... It's not really a textbook, just a thing booklet that goes over general topology, then goes through a lot of examples and provides all these really nice charts of topological spaces based on properties. I actually made a graph, mostly based off it: http://christopherolah.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/compactness-...

Oh, and Needham's _Visual Complex Analysis_ (in list) is awesome! Best math book I've ever read.

Er... What!?!

> Why doesn't the square on the hypotenuse just slide off?

This is nonsensical to me. Could you please elaborate? You seem to be asking why an idea isn't effected by gravity...

I read it as a sort of parody. The point of the article wasn't to sell the video but to demonstrate how to sell the video. It's a lesson on advertising in the form of an add. Very clever.

Some things were a little over done, but I'd assume that it's to emphasise techniques.

You know, I'd like to not block adds. I really don't want to. But some sites make me.

I didn't block them until a few months a go. But there were some adds that were just so obnoxious. The worst were these ones that played really loud sounds -- they made me keep my speakers mute, because I didn't want my computer to spontaneously start playing music and wake people up.

One day I was just utterly fed up. I went to Mozilla's site, downloaded an add-blocker, set it to the default settings, and voila! Everything was much nicer.

I'm going to reinstall my OS soon -- I find using apt-get to upgrade break things -- and I'll use the Internet without an add-blocker for a few days. If things are as bad as they were, I'll use one again. Maybe try and find a list that only blocks obnoxious adds, though.

> 400 years of brutal slavery and genocide inflicted on an entire race of God's chosen people?

You make it sound like the `God's chosen people' part is relevant to the moral discussion. If the Egyptians had been the slaves and Israelites the slave holders, would that change things?

What about if it was the Americans and their black slaves, a couple hundred year ago?

Would infanticide be justified then?

I don't even see how the Egyptians moral crimes are relevant. The party that is primarily punished is the only innocent one: children.

That's before we even consider whether the death sentence is ever justifiable.

> Two moral crimes, good sir, now who's to be the judge?

As the old adage goes, two wrongs, good sir, don't make a right.

Thanks!

It's hard to ask for evidence in advance (and probably mildly contrary to the scientific spirit :) ), but at the very least it will have to explain lots of seemingly contrary evidence (or show flaws in _all_ those studies).

update: I should also mention that I'm fairly trusting of at least some of those studies, since I know some people involved in them and they're both smart and trustworthy... Also, I'd be very surprised if CO2 was completely innocent.

There's actually a theory going around that land use may be a contributing factor to climate change along with CO2: a forest absorbs heat differently than a crop field which is different from a city. This theory demonstrates that CO2-based AGW isn't either-or.

Well, we're actually in a discussion of the magnitude of its effect at this point... (Which could lead to the discussion of whether there could be multiple causes for climate change rather than _just_ rising CO2...)

Like any chaotic system, it is difficult to predict the outcome, just that temperature is likely to increase. Think about the Mandelbrot set.

In any case, this is where one needs to look at other evidence.

Let me preface my answer with asking you a question. You see, you seem to have very similar beliefs to those I did a few years ago. My beliefs started changing once I asked myself the question: suppose Satan was all powerful and God/Christ was weak; Satan will reward those who will murder, rape, and torture but sentence those who try to act morally to eternal torture (Hell)... Would you still act morally or would you embrace debauchery? Which would be `right?'

If you are willing to act the way Satan wishes for you to, then the reason you act the way you do now is just selfishness. If you are not, you must be prepared to question the morality of God and to reject immoral actions. I came to the conclusion that the person I was required I reject `Satan' and you can see where things went from there.

>If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism. Here's why...

It is my opinion that your comment does not proceed to demonstrate this. I will return to this later.

> A perfect morality is knowing all information at once, weighing all that information, and then making the perfect decision.

So an omniscient murder is a good person?

> We as humans are morally relative because we don't know all available information and knowledge. It's why a tribe on some island genuinely believes infanticide is acceptable (they genuinely believe the child is possessed), while you do not (you would know the child has a neurological disorder).

What the tribe does is wrong. The fact that they are doing it out of ignorance makes it understandable but it doesn't make it right.

It's possible that I, like the tribe, am wrong.

But lets reflect on what you've argued. At the beginning you stated:

>If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism.

You haven't demonstrated this. The only thing you've really made an argument for is that only an omniscient being can know with certainty what is right or wrong. I don't agree, but am willing to grant it temporarily. You still haven't shown that morality can't exist without an omniscient being, or that an omniscient being is necessarily moral.

As Humans we must do the best we can.

Are you willing to argue, then, that infanticide is acceptable? Think about what (supposedly) happened for a minute: God killed thousands, perhaps million, of children. Some wouldn't have been able to speak. Most wouldn't be of an age where they could in anyway be held responsible for their civilisations crimes (slavery) by any sane morality (Yes, I know God likes to go and punish ``even until the third generation.'' I happen to disagree.).

If you are willing to accept this, are you willing to accept Herod's slaughter of the innocents? They're are many similarities between God's actions and Herod's.

Regardless, the question is whether you are willing to justify God's actions. Please answer: is the mass slaughter of children to punish their parents justifiable to you?

I can't say I've read all (or even most!) of the articles posted on HN about this topic, the ones that I have haven't been climate `denialism' but rather scepticism and more specifically scepticism towards individual claims... There were some people outright rejecting AGW in the comments, but even that wasn't that common.

I'm of the opinion that the AGW hypothesis is correct. I'm very confident of it. (In particular because one can derive a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and average global temperature directly from the properties of CO2.) On the other hand, I'm sure that there are many individual pieces of evidence that are false.

It's good that they're questioned and subjected to rigour. False evidence for a true hypothesis is not something we should accept.

This is how science works and it not a bug but a feature.

The political spin being put on it is a minor irritation that will go away with time.

And be thankful you don't have relatives who tell you that global warming is a government conspiracy to give power to the UN demonstrating that the Antichrist is near. That is really irritating.

She won't make a full recovery, but we can still help her. And I think we have a moral obligation to try.

It wouldn't surprise me if she _is_ suicidal right now.

>Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell.

That was a poor wording on my part. Make that where they diverge most strongly.

>My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason).

I'm going to assume your talking about assault. If I'm wrong, sorry. In any case, we can't just let them settle it with a fee to cover damages. The aggressor demonstrated themselves a threat to the Public. Depending on the circumstances, the aggressor will need to spend some time in jail, with a psychologist, doing community service, reporting to a probation officer, et cetra, or most likely a combination of the above, for the protection of society.

If there was material damage in addition to that, it is not a criminal matter and can be settled in the way you described.

>As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant.

As the previous example illustrates, this is only true for criminal matters.

> Even basic logic would tell you "God Exists" does not lead to "Therefore, God does not exist." in the same argument.

Incorrect. A common form argument is: suppose a leads to not a, therefore a can't be true or suppose a leads to contradiction, therefore a can't be true. Arguments of this form have been made on this topic based on morality (counter arguments exist: cf. Descartes).

But I'm not trying to do so, anyway.

My argument was solely that the God of the Bible is immoral. As the quote goes: "even if a God as described in the Bible does exist, he is not fit for worship due to his low moral standards." There are misotheists who believe Jehova is evil.

> Morality is relative to the information one knows. You, not being an omniscient deity, do not have all the information available to make a perfect judgement.

I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong. I don't need to be omniscient to know that infanticide is wrong. Jehova commits Crimes Against Humanity and Acts of Genocide at several points in the OT.

Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc.

Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge.

There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began.

> <cut for brevity>

>That's the moral case; note what I said in the parent comment about the practicality of capital punishment.

All I can say is that I'm ideologically opposed to this. Most people who know me in person describe me as naive and it's probably true. But I'm not able to look at people that way, and quite frankly I don't want to.

>All else being equal, capital punishment is a great deterrent: 100% effective at preventing that person from committing that crime again.

Deterrence isn't preventing a person from repeating a crime, but ever doing it. The idea is that they won't do it to avoid the punishment -- a sort of sociopath's substitute for morality. I've yet to see any actual evidence that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment and have heard claims (though no evidence) to the contrary (that the psychology of such large punishments leaves them effectively indistinguishable)... I've never researched it but I probably should.

As for preventing repetition, so do many other things, such as imprisonment.

>More to your point, though, I think that a justice system which was ultimately based on retribution would have all the positive qualities you speak of as valid motivations.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

You'll notice I said that I mentioned protecting the perpetrator from society... Killing them kind of defeats that. Also, they can't achieve rehabilitation if we kill them.

Essentially, I want a justice system based off compassion for _all_ parties. Call it naive altruism if you wish. This isn't to say we shouldn't make protecting ourselves from criminals a priority, but after that we should be trying to help them. As we do, in providing counseling, etc.

> If you believe in free will, God couldn't be causing any of the suffering to happen. People have been given the complete choice to do whatever they please, and this world is a product of that. This world's suffering is our own.

Free will is an elegant answer, if we accept it... But what about natural disasters?

>Allowing something to happen != causing

No, but Jehova seems to have gone a lot farther than that in the OT. Killing innocent children -- infants even -- for being first-born comes to mind...

> Secondly, who are you, in your own infinitesimally small amount of knowledge, to question an omniscient, omnipotent being?

Someone who believes that certain things are intrinsically wrong, regardless of whether the perpetrator is God.

> justice requires her death.

All do respect, but WTF?

There's no question that what she did was horrible, but how is it `just' to kill someone in response? Perhaps revenge and barbaric `justice' in the tradition of lex talionis (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) would encourage such a response, but I can see no benefit; it won't bring the dead back to life.

In fact, it is my opinion that the only valid motivations for punishment are: - deterrence. - protection of society and the perpetrator from each other. - rehabilitation. - moral denouncement.

These ideas are not unique to me. In fact, they're quite popular in international politics, and are part of the legal codes of certain countries. For example, The Criminal Code of Canada includes:

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

Purpose 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

-- http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-16.html#anchorbo-ga:...

> What possible sane school policies could exist at the "Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School" that the student could have violated? Don't do anything with what we're teaching you outside of school?

> I suppose there might be a rule of "don't bring in anything unless you get it screened first", but ... geez. Given the level of screening they considered necessary for this device, that doesn't sound likely.

Their policies are available at http://www.mtechmiddle.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=5881...

I don't see anything relevant to this. Perhaps the word policy is congruent to ``whatever we make up'' at this school?

In case they decide to change their policies, I've downloaded a copy along with the time of retrieval. Others may wish to do the same.

>The Pentagon’s far-out research arm Darpa is soliciting >proposals for initiatives that would attract teens to >careers in science, technology, engineering and math >(STEM), with an emphasis on computing.

_Teaching_ these subjects to teens would probably be a good start.

I'm being serious. The junk that is taught in most schools (and I'm Canadian: our education system is supposedly better than the US) and absurdly labeled these subjects is a huge part of the problem.

Math is taught like magic. Experiments have been banned from the science classroom. Computer science classes teach typing.

I'm exaggerating a little: math occasionally gets explanations, science may occasionally have a very simple experiment, computer science students may learn some programing. But those are the exception, not the rule.

It's utterly broken.