Bignose

There are metrics out there. You periodically see articles about the "Most corrupt states" and "Most corrupt cities" and so on. Typically, they define their corruption by frequency of bribery charges being levied and convicted, how often public officials are censured, etc. I am sure that the pop articles cite back to some actual journal articles where the authors define explicitly what they define corruption as. I am sure that the various authors have different definitions, if only because the Most corrupt states lists are rarely the same. You would probably do well to review some of the scientific literature.

Basically, I think that people who won't follow the rules, won't follow the rules whether they are quizzed on them or not. I don't see why having a quiz would make people necessarily behave any better. It would just be another hurdle to brush aside. If anything, I think the potential to annoy otherwise good members into quitting their registration half way through is greater than the potential of 'shaping up' otherwise rules breakers. Really, it's a statistical question: what percentage of members, who were once rules breakers, eventually became good members once they were 'gently reminded' of the rules? I suspect that this number is low... that most rules breakers don't give a hoot about the rules and would rather try to shout their message from whatever mountaintop they can find. And is the above percentage greater than the percent of people who would be annoyed by having to be quizzed on the rules? I think I can honestly say I've never formally read the rules. I just try to treat everyone with respect and obey good net etiquette. That's really all the rules are there for anyway.

There probably isn't a nice closed functional form that would describe the situation, but a Monte Carlo simulation of the scenario could be run many 1000s of times and give a pretty decent idea of the average devastation v. time curve. Run it a bunch more and you can probably even build decent estimates of the confidence intervals, too.

I would think that an fairly easy way to approach this is to find some papers what have been published in the area you are interested in, and note the authors and their institutions. That should give you at least a start, and if you need more, making contact with those authors to ask what conferences they look forward to or what else they know about in that field would be a good second step.

If there is one thing to key on, in my mind, it is this statement right here. Letting your happiness be defined by your job is probably a recipe for disaster. There is a job out there that we all think of as 'the one'. And no matter how perfect we all think that one job would be for each of us, that job has got rotten things about it. Without a doubt. Whether it is some annoying paperwork that comes with the job, or duties you don't want to do, and so on. It is almost a guarantee that that job will make you interact with people you otherwise wouldn't care to interact with. There is no such thing as a perfect job. There just isn't. I can say the above with complete and total confidence. Which leads to the conclusion that there is no job out there that will truly make us happy, and tying your happiness to your job is a fool's errand. So what does that mean? In my book, my job is what I do so that I have the means to do what really makes me happy. That is, my job is first and foremost so I can pay my housing and utility bills. But then it is there so I can buy games, sports equipment, computers, etc. etc. -- things that I enjoy. The job is a means to that. And when you come to that understanding, you learn that its usually not so bad to take a job that you maybe really didn't want, because it is providing the means to actually get to that happiness part of the equation. And lastly, even if you take a job that maybe isn't exactly what you think you want to do -- more often than not, if you actually take a vested interest in the job, you're going to find interesting challenges and things in the job to do that you wouldn't have imagined in the first place. That is, take some ownership of your job, and demonstrate to your employer that you do care, and you're usually given even more opportunities. Opportunities that can be steps in the direction of doing what you want to do. What this means is that sometimes you take a job that maybe is indeed beneath your education and experience, but is a stepping stone and a point to begin to demonstrate what you can do. Too many people today expect that the perfect opportunity is supposed to just happen, but that rarely is how the real world works. On the flip side, if you take a job and act uninterested and rely on that job to give you happiness, then you're going to be miserable. Your job is what you make of it, and I don't think it is any job's responsibility to provide your happiness. You need to provide your own happiness, and your job is just one tool to achieve that, not the whole tool.

Ok, I'm starting to get irritated by this. It is NOT 'clear'. It is NOT 'significant'. It is NOT where they 'start converging'. It is NOT 'unique', unless you can tell me why! You keep using these words, but they are all synonymous with 'this looks like the right spot to me'. But, that is not scientific. I can take every single one of your arguments and defend x=6500 and x=4000 in the exact same manner. I can call x=6500 'clear', 'significant','start of convergence', or 'unique' in the same manner you can. Since I can do this... then your point is not significant. You must show why your point is so much better than any other point -- apart from the very coincidental relationship that at your x, the value on the y axis has meaning. But you can't let that drive your picking your particular value on the x axis.

My point is that 'opinion' should have nothing to do with it. If it was a maximum or a minimum, then you have something. Or an intersection. Or something. But you have a region where the curves are somewhat more closer together then they were, but not as close as they are farther long. My point is that I think it is perfectly viable to say that even near the y axis, the curves are somewhat close. Because if I use a fuzzy word like 'somewhat' then I get to chose what 'somewhat' means. This is the same thing you've done with 'start converging'... why is the area you've picked any better than any other area? Other than if you just happen to pick that area, it makes a so-called prediction that agrees with a single physical value. Here's my problem. I too can write a program that makes curves, and I can make some curves 'start to' converge at any point I want. That doesn't make my 'start to converge' point meaningful, and it doesn't make my program meaningful. I'm hoping that you're going to provide more meaning to both the point you've picked -- because 'start to converge' by your eye is not good enough in my book... zoom the graph out and the curves will look a lot more converged to your eye... zoom the graph way in, and it won't looked converged for much higher value of x... your eye is not a good enough judge here -- as well as more meaning to your program, per swansont's request. p.s. I don't know who gave you the -1 either, but I gave you a +1 to put it back to neutral.

this doesn't answer my question. All you are doing in your answer to me is now calling this spot 'unique'. But never saying why it is. Why is it so much more unique than other points left and right on the curves? Other than you are using it to match a value. And just telling it that it comes from nowhere isn't sufficient for me to accept it. Your story on Schrodinger's equation is a non sequitor at the very least since it is derivable.

Since you don't define what 'convergence' even means, or why it is important, it is hard to really get the gist of what you're driving at. Furthermore, it looks to me like the point you choose is pretty arbitrary. The curves look even more 'converged' on one another the farther to the right down the x-axis you go. But, of course, choosing one of those points with higher apparent convergence doesn't give you the prediction you that want. My point being that it looks quite like you picked an arbitrary amount of 'convergence' and decided that that gave you a significant answer. You need to demonstrate why that, and only that, point is seemingly so important.

Ok. Then in the future, to improve your communication that needs to be clear. As I started my last post, the phrase 'mathematical proof' typically caries a very different meaning: it much more often than not means starting from a set of axiom and demonstrating a logical result based on those axioms. This is certainly not what the BBT has...

You have to be awfully careful about tossing around the phrase 'mathematical proof'. There certainly is no where near the same level of mathematical proof for the BBT as there is for Pythagoras' Theorem, for example. There is no doubt that the Pythagorean Theorem is correct. There is some justifiable doubt about the BBT, however. The BBT is an idea that makes predictions. And when we've compared those predictions to measurements, the agreement is quite good. Better than most alternative ideas for the early time of the universe. But it isn't perfect. And no reputable scientist should claim that they know exactly what the Big Bang was, or have knowledge of time 0. Because we just don't know that, and offered suggestions very often make predictions that aren't quite the same as observations. But it is the idea that makes the best predictions to date, and hence is the favored idea. As to why it is called the Big Bag Theory, and not the Big Bang Idea or Big Bang Hypothesis... it is true that in science we try to reserve the word Theory for things that have been confirmed correct literally millions of times over -- like the Theory of Gravity. I am not sure the BBT can truly live up to that, since its predictions aren't perfect every time. Quite simply, it is that words are sometimes misused, even by scientists. And once a phrase has caught on, it is hard to get everyone to change it. It happened with the Higgs boson being called 'the god particle'. A reporter took a quote a little out of context, and the phrase has stuck ever since. I suspect something similar happened to BBT. Again, though, it makes a great deal of predictions that agree quite well with measurements. I just would consider the BBT more likely to be replaced someday by something else than the Theory of Gravity. There very well may be some other idea that comes along and makes even better predictions that agree with observations than BBT. The Theory of Gravity is unlikely to be replaced, as again it has been confirmed an almost countless number of times.

Really? You have access to the greatest information system mankind has ever created -- literally orders of magnitude more information available today than even just a generation ago -- and the best you can think to do is complain? And you obviously have access to the Internet since you are posting - a lot - on this Internet forum. You can work on designing your own self-study curriculum. There are sites like Khan Academy for one. And a great deal of free online classes at websites like coursera. I have zero doubt there are many others, if you actually took some time to look for them. What one gets out of education is almost wholly what one is willing to put into it. Placing the blame on not getting much out of your education on someone else is sidestepping the main person responsible: yourself.

And how exactly was I supposed to know that? You didn't define any terms you were using here. Perhaps in the future you'll do well to provide at least some context about what you're talking about. Also, I don't think you're interpreting it correctly. It appears you are thinking of the Uncertainly Principle, wherein you can't know both the position and the momentum as accurately as you want. This isn't just 'an event'. What that means is that if you try to measure one (say position) accurately, you will be more uncertain about the other (momentum in this case). But this relationship comes in pairs, not 'events'. Your first statement, 'The more certain we are about an event the more uncertain it is and vice versa.' is still self-contradictory. You can't be both certain and uncertain about a single event.

This doesn't make any sense. Your very first statement is self-contradictory. Uncertainty can be quantified mathematically without invoking wave functions and string theory. It's usually covered at least to some level in an introductory statistics class.

It isn't just History Channel. For years and years, every single "scientist" depicted on film worked in a room with bubbling beakers with different colored fluids. District attorneys talk about "the CSI effect" in that it is harder to get convictions because members of the jury expect every single detail to be worked out by the investigators like on the crime dramas. And has there been any computer 'hacker' that has been portrayed even somewhat correctly on film? The radio show Coast to Coast AM has been on the air for literally decades. The simple truth here is that these companies are in the business of making money. So they are going to create media such that they can sell tickets or advertising. Period. Accuracy in any way shape or form really doesn't sell. That's clearly been shown because History Channel, Discovery, etc. have all moved in this direction. They are just giving the people what they want. I think that if you want changes, it has to start within the schools. If the kids truly knew science well, they wouldn't watch shows that present such poor science, and the networks would change accordingly. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I had thought that the excessive use of goofy text like ZOMG and copious number of times I wrote "*BOOM*" would have made it obvious that I was being a sarcastic jackass. I really thought the last sentence would have solidified. But, alas, I guess I am wrong. So, don't thank me LPB. Because I think it is all nonsense. Because I tried to make the most ridiculous over-the-top and unbelievable one I could using your own userid. And yet, you accepted it. It is obvious that my communications are not understood by you, and that it certainly isn't changing your mind. So, I shall bid this thread "adieus".

some history on this humor: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp

plenty in our neighborhood of the universe: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-plenty-dark-sun.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-seasonal-variation

You demonstrate that your idea makes predictions that agree well with measured observations. And if your predictions are more accurate than the current best predictions, then your idea becomes the new mainstream. Science is actually very easy to 'challenge', you just have to come up with an idea that makes better and more predictions than the current science. It's really that easy.

Challenge Accepted. I'm going to use "LittleBoPeep" Let's start with Li. That's the periodic table symbol for Lithium, Li. (*BOOM* already got the 'very much science' part done). Lithium is often proscribed for patients who suffer from bipolar disorder so they feel good. Bi means 2. And now look! There's 2 t's in a row! ZOMG!!!!1!!!11! (*BOOM* *BOOM*) I must really be on to something. Next when I search Google for 'leb', I find that leb stands for Law Enforcement Bulletin in the FBI. You know who else was in the FBI? Mulder and Scully. "The Truth is Out There." (3 *BOOM*'s beotches!) Mmmmkay, now comes "op". OP usually refers to Original Poster. Usually, that refers to the first person who posts in a thread, but really, who is the true Original Poster? Obviously, God. This must be the right, because OP also stands for the Order of Preachers. (50x *BOOOOOOOM!!!!*) ee is clearly an allusion to the famous poet ee cummings. If you take a list of ee cummings' poems alphabetically, the first is entitled' After Five'. What comes After Five? 6. Clearly that means p stands for 6. When ee cummings was 6 years old, his sister Elizabeth was born. The Queen of England's name is also Elizabeth. It used to be that the sun never set on the British Empire, therefore this must indicate that this is world wide. So, CLEARLY, in the end, 'littlebopeep' means the truth of feeling good world wide is out there. I guess that means we all better be taking your ideas more seriously, eh? Or maybe... just maybe, if you start stretching... you can make damn near anything 'mean' damn near anything else...

NASA's page there should be clearer, that is a prediction, not a measurement. A prediction, by the way, that depends explicitly on the mass of the black hole. That said, you used the word measurement, implying an experiment has been performed. That page did not use the word measurement, and unless you want to claim that you have actually measured it, neither should you.

measured? really? citation please.

Really. You're going to start down this path? You've gone from bad to worse. From just numerology to numerology+random word association. You've got all the same problems with your word to letter association as with searching for meaning in the digits of pi. Why is the Western 26 letter alphabet the correct one to use? Why not Greek? Why not Mandarin Chinese? Not to mention it isn't "y squared".. it's y with a footnote! Your random associations here aren't even associated with the right things! It's more of the same problem. You can do this with literally anything. You haven't demonstrated that this is special in anyway. LPB, I don't know how else to tell you that when you are willing to so broadly interpret things, then you've really interpreted nothing. And it sure isn't science.

Proof, probably not. Is it irrational? Probably. Apart from the fact that I have zero idea what "self-mending errors in its own function" means... My point is that any irrational number has the properties you're giving pi up above, so long as we're willing to ad hoc all the rules in the same way you are. I can use sqrt(2) in the exact same way. I can find every number of the Fibonnaci sequence in the decimal digits of sqrt(2). The only difference is that I'm not ascribing some kind of mythos to that fact.

If this is really what you believe, then I'd say that this conversation is moot. Right here, you've basically stated that your mind will not be changed -- that your system of rules that are made up on the fly are clearly sacrosanct. Are my rules also sacrosanct? They give the same results. They must be 'divine' too, right? Either way, by invoking the divine, you're clearly not interested in doing science. Science does not invoke the divine. Science uses rational objective procedures to get answers. Not procedures that need to be 'corrected' at every turn to ensure that the 'right' answer comes out. You say "I am still not understanding why it is so hard to understand/see this will unlock everything if we work at it there are no error so all that is needed is a little logic.". I say that I still don't understand how you think what you've presented above is logical in any way. The 'rules' for each digit change. That isn't logical. How many changes are going to be required? Every single digit? And you still didn't explain why pi in base 10 is so darn special. Why not sqrt(2) in binary? Or e^sqrt(7) in hexadecimal? Or any of the other infinite irrational numbers? Pi is just a number.