Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Sven Groot Sven Groot Don't worry... I'm a doctor.
  • Spartan and ClickOnce

    I think the only thing that non-IE browsers couldn't do was detect whether the .Net Framework was already installed (since IE sends that info in the UA string, other browsers do not), so it could decide whether to offer the bootstrap .exe or the .application file directly.

  • The end is nigh

    , Dr Herbie wrote

    Wish I'd had Apple shares though -- presumably they went up?

    MSFT completely crashed, I should've sold last week. :P

    Ah well, they'll go up again once Windows 10 comes out. :D

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @Sven Groot: I think it does belong in a scientific discussion. I did show how your argument is wrong. There is always a human observer to account for collapsing the wave function, regardless if it is days after the recording.

    That is only true because by definition we can't know about something without observing it. At most that says that we can't know if the wave function would have been collapsed without a person to observe it. Lack of proof does not prove the opposite.

    I didn't make that up, I read it.


    Plus, how do new theories begin? With ideas.

    Yes, but for an idea to be taken seriously it has to have some basis in reality. What observations have you (or others) made that lead you to believe only living things can collapse wave functions? As I said, the fact that we can't observe it happening otherwise (because by definition, we have to observe something to know about it) doesn't mean anything. It is just a fancier version of the question "if a tree falls down in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound".


    I noticed no answer or acknowledgement of my assertion, just dismissal.

    Because you have not presented any facts to back up your idea. You have just asserted it, nothing else, which gives us nothing to respond to. You made the assertion, the burden of proof lies on you.

    Also, if life is the only thing that can collapse wave functions, how did the universe work before life existed?

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote


    Until we look, we don't know, and if we never look, we can't know, and when we look, we cause the wave function to collapse. This happens outside of time in my thinking, you cannot EVER separate the scientist/observer from the experiment, I say, and this proves that it is sentient beings who are responsible for collapsing the wave function. To allay Bass, this is a faith issue on my part, but not religious, I'm not a religious person. And I realize this can never be proven or dis-proven.

    At most, this "proves" is that you can't know, which means it doesn't really prove anything. It's fine for you to believe this, but to state anything is proven you need to have an experiment that demonstrates it, and preferably also design an experiment that could falsify it. Since your entire premise pretty much precludes that possibility, it doesn't really have any place in a scientific discussion.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Elon Musk just put $10 million towards making AI not scary.

    @Bass: Tell me how humans collapse waves into particles upon observation and I will name you Pope of my new religion.

    They don't. Probability wave functions will collapse upon interaction with anything else regardless of whether humans are present. Typically, "observation" just means bouncing a photon off something. This can happen regardless of whether a sentient being was responsible for sending that photon.

    Just because they use the word "observation" to describe this doesn't mean someone actually needs to be present to see it.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , ScanIAm wrote

    Nobody is saying that, either.  If it takes 5 hours in line to ride Space Mountain, then it should take everyone 5 hours.  If you don't want to wait for that ride, go to universal and ride the Hulk instead.  But allowing people to pay for priority means that in 10 years, only the wealthy can look back on their great experiences on Space Mountain.  The poor could never wait long enough.  It's intrinsically not fair.

    Wait, sorry to derail the thread, but is that really how fast pass tickets work in the US? My only experience with them is at Tokyo Disney Sea, where they are free. Fast passes are given out in limited numbers for specific time slots. So at the start of the day, you go to each ride and get a pass which tells you between which times you can get fast entry to the ride. The only thing you need to do in order to get fast passes is get up early enough (because for the really popular rides, they will run out fairly quickly). You don't need to pay for them.

  • Finally ordered my Surface Pro 3

    The fan is a little bit noisy but only when the system is under a lot of stress. During normal use, the fan rarely comes on for me. If you're installing stuff, yeah, it'll come on and make some noise.

    I have an i7 myself. I'm typing this post on it, actually, I love my SP3. :)

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , kettch wrote

    (net neutrality) == (screw Comcast) == (sounds good to me)

    As someone who was recently forced to switch to Comcast (because I moved and was unable to keep my Frontier FiOS at the new address), screwing Comcast sounds like a pretty worthy goal to me. They SERIOUSLY suck, hard.

  • Bill Gates at the House of Lords (London)

    , Proton2 wrote

    @Sven Groot:When you did you research, did you go to SkepticalScience ? because that is a propaganda website .

    No, I read actual scientific papers, and checked claims from both sides. I then traced claims back to their source as much as I could. I found that there was overwhelming scientific evidence to support climate change, and that man is responsible for it. The only issue up for debate is how much effect we've had, not if we've had any.

    I found that with many of the largest opponents of climate change, like Monkton, there is a very large discrepancy between what they are trying to say and what the sources they are using were trying to say, or that they combine data from different sources in ways that are not valid. They either don't understand the sources they are reading, didn't read them thoroughly, or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

    Not that that doesn't happen on both sides, mind you. I just haven't found a single person arguing wholly against climate change that wasn't doing so, and Monkton is probably one of the worst offenders from what I remember. The fact that you hold him in such high regard tells me that you have not done any in-depth research into how he arrived at his claims.

    Also, when you did your research, did you go to WattsUpWithThat? Because that is a propaganda website.

    (See how effective such a statement is at arguing against someone's position? Yep, it's not, at all.)

  • Bill Gates at the House of Lords (London)

    , Proton2 wrote

    *snip*When I began my research into climate science, I found the same ad hominem attack against Lord Monckton of Brenchley  as what some of you are doing here right now. I believed the nonsense against this man at first. I have since learned that this man is an honorable man and conducts himself in the scientific method and you people should be ashamed at what you are doing.

    Interesting, because when I did my research into climate science I found that Monckton consistently misrepresents his sources. If you look at where he's getting his information from, you'll find that he often draws conclusions from papers that those papers themselves do not support, or that he combines data from different sources in ways they were not intended. He is a classic example of starting with a conclusion and cherry picking evidence to fit your conclusion.

    I couldn't care less about whether he's a lord or not, or what he may or may not have done. All I care about is that he is either not capable of reading his own sources, or deliberately trying to deceive his audience.