EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 411
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On March 17 2016 12:02 JimmiC wrote: How come it is generally accepted that the smartest people in the world both real (hawkings, every other famous scientist and so on) as well as fictional (cast of big bang so on) do not believe in religion yet most of the masses do? Does it not seem like basic logic to belief what our best and brightest do? On topic: | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
|
unholyflare
42 Posts
On March 13 2016 04:52 KwarK wrote: Definitely not London. One of the most expensive cities in the world and just 1500/month. I mean if you're really into high culture then whatever, London has everything, it's one of the global cultural capitals. But London is for visiting, you don't actually live there. +1. Extra 700 in Amsterdam translates to way more than an extra 700 in spending power over London. And I always said myself also that I like visiting London, but I'd never want to live there. For me, just too many people. People everywhere. People walking slowly. People. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 17 2016 12:07 farvacola wrote: Pondering whether or not classifying "the smartest people" as only scientists and math folk is a good idea is definitely where I'd start in terms of addressing your stupid question. Additionally, belief in God or religiosity in the general sense tend to correlate with discipline more than "intelligence"; for example, religiosity is far more common among doctors than biologists. Depending on the kind of doctor I was, I could definitely see that being the case. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Rollin
Australia1552 Posts
On March 16 2016 04:23 FiWiFaKi wrote: Math majors, please help  How do I take the derivative of a Jacobian?I'm trying to create a program to optimize a path in space by minimizing the largest torque of an arbitrary robot geometry consisting of any number of revolute and prismatic joints attached in a serial chain (in any order) in a open-loop manipulator within a given a time. My program can assign the proper coordinate system to any robot defined, and obtain the base to end effector transformation matrix. I then obtain my Jacobian J_v(q) = [dq_i/dx dq_i+1/dx ... dq_n/dx dq_i/dy dq_i+1/dy ... dq_n/dy dq_i/dz dq_i+1/dz ... dq_n/dz] I repeat a similar process process to obtain my J_w(q) Combine the two to obtain J(q) = [J_v J_w]^T And I have v = [v_x v_y v_z omega_x omega_y omega_z]^T Thus v = J(q)*q_dot Now I'm trying to obtain acceleration by differentiating the above equation. Google hasn't been much help in explaining how to do this. I'm doing this purely for my interest (I think the results I can obtain could be very powerful, I have made ideas), as an extension of a basic robotics a course I'm taking. Edit: opps, I derped hard. I meant to say Jv is distance from 0-n differentiated wrt q1 in the first column, q2 in second column etc. And x is first row, y second row, z 3rd row. This paper may be of some use: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/1702-differentiating-functions-of-the-jacobian-with-respect-to-the-weights.pdf | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
Rules include: No Biff Tannen, giving yourself almanacs or interacting with yourself in the past. No outside help or coordination with relatives, friends, family. This has to benefit only you in the year 2016. Your goal is to pop back from the past and have access to what you set up shortly after you return to the present, as few hoops as possible. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11934 Posts
1) Grab money that you can spend in the past, either directly, or grab some gold and turn into money in the past. 2) Go to past, buy stuff that is really cheap and is going to be worth a lot in the future (Try to take stuff that doesn't directly violate the future you would expect just to make sure, so no buying the Mona Lisa) (This can be a lot of random shit, baseball cards, land deeds, pay some artist that you know will become famous in the future to make specific art for you that you know is not popular known in your time, stamps, signed first edition stuff) 3) Put stuff in a box, pay an attorney or attorney office (research this guy in the future, make sure noone he knows had a sudden unexpected influx of wealth over the last 50 years, make sure his office never burned down, stuff like this) to deliver the box to you 30 minutes after you plan to return from the past. 4) Go to the future, be rich. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 18 2016 01:23 Simberto wrote: I am going with a moderate time jump, 50 years or something like that. 1) Grab money that you can spend in the past, either directly, or grab some gold and turn into money in the past. 2) Go to past, buy stuff that is really cheap and is going to be worth a lot in the future (Try to take stuff that doesn't directly violate the future you would expect just to make sure, so no buying the Mona Lisa) (This can be a lot of random shit, baseball cards, land deeds, pay some artist that you know will become famous in the future to make specific art for you that you know is not popular known in your time, stamps, signed first edition stuff) 3) Put stuff in a box, pay an attorney or attorney office (research this guy in the future, make sure noone he knows had a sudden unexpected influx of wealth over the last 50 years, make sure his office never burned down, stuff like this) to deliver the box to you 30 minutes after you plan to return from the past. 4) Go to the future, be rich. This was what I came up with too, pick some savings and loan in the country where you know nothing will happen to it and whaaat I found the key to a box with 15 near mint copies of Action Comics #1, what a surprise. I started thinking about it after a family found Ty Cobb Cards that were exceedingly rare. Realistic ways in which you could ensure personal wealth if you could unreasonably travel through time, or ways to accumulate wealth with time travel while involving as few people as possible. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidseideman/2016/03/17/controversial-1-million-ty-cobb-baseball-card-found-in-old-paper-bag-sparks-big-debate/#7c58ffd44c19 I was thinking that land would be much more difficult to pull off than memorabilia though. With taxes, and other duties to it not to mention things like imminent domain I'm not sure how much a deed to valuable land would be worth. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 17 2016 12:02 JimmiC wrote: How come it is generally accepted that the smartest people in the world both real (hawkings, every other famous scientist and so on) as well as fictional (cast of big bang so on) do not believe in religion yet most of the masses do? Does it not seem like basic logic to belief what our best and brightest do? Because your premise is incorrect. Hyperintelligence is correlated with thoughtfulness about religion, not any particular religious theory. Historical factors do mean that at the current time, science in particular is a field where religiousity is lower. Part of this is just connected to the fact that, regrettably, being a scientist is positively correlated with all sorts of things that are negatively correlated to religiosity: whiteness, growing up with wealth, being male, having a lower emphasis on family, living in an urban setting, etc. But most of it is just the fact that science and religion have been falsely seen as being at odds for a regrettably long time. I will also not address the fact that if you include both scientists and other thinkers, many of the greatest minds even of our secular age are distinctly religious (Einstein, Collins, Lewis, Tolkien, Niebuhr, etc.) I won't get into the arguments at stake there, but I do think it's important to recognize that you can isolate the historical factor by asking, have great scientists always been less religious than the general population? Sokrates, Newton, Pascal, Mendel, etc. were all deeply religious. Gallileo and Copernicus developed the ideas of modern science premised on the notion that God must have created the universe ordered and beautiful, with knowable rules. Many of these guys were contrary to the establishment in whatever place they were in (the local pagan authorities legit killed Sokrates). They were determined and deeply thoughtful. And all of them ended up with some idea of a power beyond the material universe that gives it purpose. On your other point, I think arguing that organized religion is flawed is very reasonable. Very, if I may use the word, Christian. But more harm than good? I'd really hesitate to say that especially after you discount wars that were clearly secular though given religious auspisces. (30 years war: the great religious war of European history! except that it was fought between Catholic France and Cathoic Austria/Spain with minimal Protestant involvement.) | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 18 2016 02:44 JimmiC wrote: Dpending on how much you have now you could go back and buy cheap land around nyc, or almost any major city and just leave it till now sell and be rich! Land is tricky though, especially land that would be worth something. If I went way way back, and bought or traded for most of downtown Manhattan then appeared in 2016 with that deed, the deed itself may be worth something but I can't very well go, well I own Times Square. That was my thought process on it, plus there would be taxes to keep current and the like. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11934 Posts
So you want to take something that is completely irrelevant in the past, and worth a lot now. You could of course also go in the opposite direction, go to the future and bring futuretech back into the now, which you then "invent". That solves your problems with changing the past, but it might make future dudes angry at you. And the future dudes also have better time machines than you do, since you have one now, and they have developed it further. Or even worse, future you might not like you doing that, and he knows exactly when you are going to be where. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
| ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On March 17 2016 12:02 JimmiC wrote: How come it is generally accepted that the smartest people in the world both real (hawkings, every other famous scientist and so on) as well as fictional (cast of big bang so on) do not believe in religion yet most of the masses do? Does it not seem like basic logic to belief what our best and brightest do? People want to have something in case there is something after death. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 18 2016 03:31 WrathSCII wrote: Are you considered a "PC Master Race" if you play a 1998 game only...? Card carrying. | ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On March 18 2016 02:49 Yoav wrote: , being a scientist is positively correlated with all sorts of things that are negatively correlated to religiosity: whiteness, growing up with wealth, being male, having a lower emphasis on family, living in an urban setting, etc. I'm very well interested on the sources of your affirmation that scientist put a lowest emphasis on family. Given how you ascertain this, i have no doubt they are plentiful and indisputable. Also you left out the quite obvious reason that the whole concept of god simply doesnt agree with the scientific method at large. The simple hypothesys "god exists" is not scientifically valid, since it's not falsifiable (meaning you can't invent a experiment proving your hypothesis wrong). That makes your whole hypothesis weak and basically invalid to science. Also, the concept of "sacred" is the polar opposite of the scientific method, where everything can, and should, be questionned, tested thoroughfuly, and thrown away if it doesnt agree with the experiment | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
What? | ||
| ||
