It was the kind of thing Coach would've said on Cheers.
Very convincing. Makes me completely want to put myself under government control. Please take me to where you can make me unconscious and naked.
Riley ,'Help'
Natter .38 Special
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
DXMachina - Aug 23, 2005 3:33:20 pm PDT #711 of 10002
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 3:37:17 pm PDT #712 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
If I have 10 & you have 5, the next 1 means more to you - basically. But if I need 20 to feed my family, Oxfam doesn't get that found buck. My whole entire OVERINSPECTED snark was based on the local variability of that 20, Jesse.
Surely that's clear by now.
JenP - Aug 23, 2005 3:39:17 pm PDT #713 of 10002
La Femme Nikita
Oh, OK, no. I never saw LFN. No reason I'd know the acronym. Well, what a relief.
Jesse - Aug 23, 2005 3:46:37 pm PDT #714 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
OVERINSPECTED
The horror!!
;)
§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 4:06:43 pm PDT #715 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
The horror!!
Well, it's not like my same point doesn't stand a million posts later.
Jesse - Aug 23, 2005 4:19:48 pm PDT #716 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
But your point is still not THE point.
§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 4:22:01 pm PDT #717 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Oddly enough, I never claimed it was.
Wait, that's not odd at all, considering I never believed it was.
Jesse - Aug 23, 2005 4:51:12 pm PDT #718 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
In @@ news, I just saw an ad for the new Doppler 2 MILLION.
Rick - Aug 23, 2005 5:30:01 pm PDT #719 of 10002
Again, don't take these numbers to be exact. They're just guesses that he argues for in his book, but Swinburne will admit that there are perfectly good arguments for coming up different probability estimates that will lead to a different outcome.
This is the sort of thing that always makes me happy that I am a scientist rather than a philosopher. The Bayesian approach is very powerful if you can put in some prior probabilities, collect some data, and then revise the probability estimates based on the fit of your model to the data. After several iterations you can arrive at an efficient and accurate answer. But if there are no data-based iterations? If you start and end the process with your own assumptions, which are of unknown quality? I just don’t understand what has been accomplished. I love the simple-minded empiricism of the scientific method. It allows you to bumble your way to a pretty good answer even if you start off with stupid ideas. That’s a useful quality for someone like me, who never has a shortage of stupid ideas.
tommyrot - Aug 23, 2005 5:39:58 pm PDT #720 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Best headline ever for a nature article?
Enemy anemones wage all-out war
When tide rolls back in, it's polyp vs. polyp
Say "enemy anemones" three times fast....
As the tide starts to cover the colonies, "scouts" move to the border and look for empty space to claim. The "warrior" anemones — which are larger and well-armed with stinging cells – provide backup by inflating their arms and slapping at enemies, sometimes from four rows back off the front lines.
Meanwhile, in the center of the colony, poorly armed anemones concentrate on reproduction, making sure there are enough "troops" to maintain the colony.
And they coordinate all these complex behaviors without a single brain among them.