Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread IngeGNUe
On 06/14/16 15:15, Bill Ricker wrote: > And Astronomers/Astrophysicists (as with practitioners any other science) > should be taken with a grain of salt or two when they leave ​their area of > expertise. +1 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org

[Discuss] Boston Linux Meeting reminder, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - A Graybeards's Worst Nightmare - How Docker Containers are Re-Defining the Linux OS -

2016-06-14 Thread Jerry Feldman
When: June 15, 2016 7PM (6:30PM for Q) Topic: A Graybeards's Worst Nightmare - How Docker Containers are Re-Defining the Linux OS Moderator: Daniel Riek , Senior Director, Systems Design and Engineering , Red Hat Software Location: MIT Building E-51, Room 315 *** Summary: How container

Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread Matthew Gillen
On 06/14/2016 10:38 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > If the statistical model is guilty of over-fitting (too many degrees of > freedom aka too many parameters), the model is non-falsifiable in the > short-term. (But eventually enough data will show that adding 5th order > epicycles is guff.)

Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread Bill Ricker
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > You can read more about it here: ​Douglas Adams did it better. ​ -- Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux ___ Discuss mailing list

Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread Rich Pieri
On 6/14/2016 3:15 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > There's a difference between their computational model embedded in there > somewhere. There is. Tyson's odds are his personal opinion while Musk's "odds" are him pulling numbers out of his ass to make catchy sound bites for the media. The simulation

Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread Bill Ricker
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > Thing is, simulation hypothesis (simulated reality) isn't a scientific > hypothesis. It's a philosophical one. > ​I would *like* to agree with that. But Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson are quoting odds that are ​

Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread Rich Pieri
On 6/14/2016 10:38 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > ​Indeed. Science is based on hypothesis-testing. Only a "falsifiable" > hypothesis is testable. Yup. Thing is, simulation hypothesis (simulated reality) isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's a philosophical one. As for Musk, he's very good at

[Discuss] Flummoxed by behavior: openwrt on AC1750

2016-06-14 Thread John Hall
It all started when I started taking apart my network to move. I've now moved and keep the same router settings in both routers. I have a netgear running tomato that is working fine. It never switched places as the lead router for the network. I have an ac-1750 to improve wireless access. It's

Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread Bill Ricker
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Eric Chadbourne wrote: > > I'm reading up on being "unfalsifiable" now. Fascinating ​Indeed. Science is based on hypothesis-testing. Only a "falsifiable" hypothesis is testable. If evidence against a conspiracy theory is taken to

Re: [Discuss] I don't understand

2016-06-14 Thread Eric Chadbourne
> That hypothesis is unfalsifiable, therefore I throw it out with the tea I'm reading up on being "unfalsifiable" now. Fascinating. Eric ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss